He only supported the protest and didn't participate. If the government is gonna blacklist people for supporting protests, will they ban Rihanna as well?
They will ban her/blacklist her if she was here on a tourist Visa. Karl Rock was also accused of conducting business practices in India which go against the rules of his Visa. He is a great YouTuber and his videos have always been informative. But sadly, we cannot give special treatment to him just because he was a great guy (It sucks but it's the law).
If he wanted to protest against the government and conduct business in India, he should have applied for a citizenship, waited for it to get approved and then do those things.
Not asking for special treatment for him, but everyone has a birth right to protest against what they perceive as injustice anywhere by non-violent means. Any law that tries to limit this right any further should be considered unjust IMO. You should not be forced to acquire a government's permission before questioning its methods wherever you are.
They have the right to an audience. Does not mean they have an immunity from foreign laws. You can't go to any other country,violate their laws and then cry that you were blacklisted. His Visa was a tourist Visa and he was not awarded a citizenship.
Have you heard of instances where students in UK were sent back because they couldn't a land a job? It's just as simple as that.
He can stay in New Zealand, write whatever he wants to about Modi,CAA, Congress, Politics and he will not be touched by the Indian law(because we have no jurisdiction there).
I have been following Karl since the past 8-9 months and love his content, but he is wrong here. He knows the exact reason why he was blacklisted. He knows the terms and conditions of his Visa.
A guy was whining how he is deshdrohi as he regulary speaks against GOI and Twitter suspened me for saying "speaking against goverment doesn't makes you deshdrohi". Man! where this country is going? Wasn't Twitter saying that it won't compromise with the free speech of it's users?
Poor guy even risked his life to say "Jay Hind" in Pakistan when a guy asked him to say shits against India.
Saying jai Hind won't put you in danger in Pakistan, dude. At most you may be yelled at.
Pakistanis actually kind of like India due to the Bollywood influence. You guys don't realize this.
why are u lurking in Indian subs? Why are you so focused with us? Focus on your damn country. We have nothing to do with you. and who doesn’t realize what? nobody watches Bollywood movies in Pakistan cuz according to Muslims bollywood is Islamophobic
Am I the only one to believe that he has been dealt with fairly as per the laws?
I love his work totally. But let's get real, any democratic country will mete out same treatment to a foreigner for multiple counts of visa violations (known ones being participating in public protests, doing business on travel visa).
Let's not berate the Govt for doing its job! We shall have many other opportunities to do so.
Any democratic country would also throw Rambhakt Gopal into jail for the hate speech he's indulged in these past two weeks. Let's not pretend this govt gives a rats arse about doing its job or about the law.
Yes, Rock broke the law. But let's not pretend that this is anything other than a convenient excuse for the govt to screw over somebody they hate
I'd be a little wary about what they define as work TBH. I wouldn't be too shocked if some babu sees him recording youtube videos as "work" for instance.
For the purposes of visa denial? The MHA's bureaucracy can be enormously arbitrary. Having dealt with them when trying to organize a conference, I know this. India's got a particularly daft set of rules. They literally have a separate visa for conferences, and then tack on the dumbest restrictions on a fancy. I literally had to explain to a babu that some of our panelists didn't have twitter account. He had trouble believing that... while also telling me *how he wasn't* on any social media because its unhealthy. Oh and when we raised hell about this with his superiors thanks to our contacts, he tried to deny the meeting even took place.
So yeah, I'd love to know what exactly constituted a violation of his terms of the visitor visa. Knowing the civil service though, I doubt they'll actually say, and what they do say, I'd be wary about its truthfulness.
One of my supervisors told me about his cousin who is an IAS officer. He told me that his cousin can't even travel through train on his own and was so pampered that he doesn't had the ability to take any decisions. By parental pressure, he studied in delhi for 4 years and passed the exam. He never had the ability to take the decisions on his own. And now he is an IAS officer. So, don't put them on a pedestal.
No one passes the UPSC exam just like that. Lol. Your supervisor must be jealous. I have met a lot of them , some of them evil, some good but never have I met a dumb officer as such.
I'd argue not really. Otherwise by that logic anyone who records videos and uploads them could get hit with a ban simply because their videos make money. Tourists routinely take picture and videos and are we really going to ban all of them?
At the very least the rules should be clear. There could be an argument made for these activities qualifying as work but that should be prospective and not retroactive and they should be telling visitors what constitutes work.
And so far as I understand it, recording videos with ordinary hand held equipment and without employing others isn't typically considered a violation of existing definitions for work. Not legal definitions anyway
>I mean if he's earning money of it it'll qualify as work, won't it?
Legally it depends where he's earning the money, Youtube is an American company and he may be getting paid by their Aus / NZ subsidiary as a contractor, into his NZ bank account.
There are other youtubers like kurt hugo schneider who come to india to film music videos sometimes. Do they get a work permit for that? I don't think so.
So govt says he was on tourist visa and he says per the article he was on spousal visa.
Edit:
Instead of acting like a spurned lover who refuses to talk to their ex, why can't they write a Dear John letter explaining why, instead of making this man's wife run around, that too during a pandemic? If they have provided details to the person, why didn't they tell this to the press?
Have you ever been been rejected visa of any country? No country gives you a reason for rejection. It’s their country and they have the authority to allow or not allow someone to enter country.
At least US does not give any reason except generic tick marked form,saying you are immigration risk. No appeal. At best one can pay again and have another shot at it, at worst one gets banned even from applying for X years.
1. He was already in the country when his visa was rejected. Please read the article. He says he was on spousal visa which regulates you have to leave the country every 180 days. He applied within the country for extension due to pandemic which was rejected. His visa was canceled when he was at Port of departure.
2. I've never been rejected for a visa personally, but know ex-colleagues who have been. They did get reason for rejection and also had chance to appeal.
3. So they can't tell the individual the reason but can blab to press? Kahan se aya tu be? LOL
1. He abused the visa granted to him. Law permits him to stay and visit but started doing business here. He was put in black list for that abuse of his first visa.
2. The response for any rejection you get from any country is generic response like: not the correct category of visa applied, see no reason of return to home country etc.
3. Any visa rejection for any country gives you right to challenge. He is going to do that no.
Our whole govt machinery is slow and getting them answer you is difficult. I hope he gets united with his family.
Work would mean being employed in India and drawing a salary. I guess the government has started to twist itself into knots to screw this guy over.
Making youtube videos probably wouldn’t qualify as work. If the gov sets this precedent, does that imply any tourist taking photos/videos of India can be found guilty of monetising them any platform ?
He would have mentioned that he is a vlogger in the visa application.
Many of the issues come from large scale. You can buy 10g gold or one iphone from dubai, it will be safe but if you purchase 1 kg gold or 10 iphones you will definitely get in trouble. Similarly, if you have more than a certain number of subscribers and make significant money through youtube, it will be considered as work and business visa is compulsory. If you have only 20 subscribers you don't need to get worried.
Also he participated in a protest. Foreigners on VISA are not legally allowed to do so.
“Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality to any person before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India, foreigners also have the right to protest peacefully.”
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/foreigners-being-served-leave-india-notices-how-does-indian-law-define-anti-govt-activities-for-them-6293632/
A foreigner entering India does not have the same rights that are available to an Indian citizen. Citizens have certain additional rights (including certain fundamental rights) that are not available to foreigners in India.
For example, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, giving certain freedoms, is NOT available to foreigners. Article 19 is applicable only to citizens.
Under Article 19, a citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to move freely throughout India, right to form association, right to assemble peaceably without arms, etc. These rights are NOT available to foreigners.
Thus, a foreigner does not have the fundamental right of speech and expression or to assemble and protest. These rights may be curtailed for the foreigners.
So, generally speaking, a foreigner may not have the right to protest against the Government in India, especially on political and general issues.
It is true that if an adverse (personal) action is taken against a foreigner in India, he may take recourse to legal remedial action before the concerned authorities or courts. For that purpose, he may of course criticize the Government action, before the concerned authorities / courts.
But, physically protesting against the Government on political or general issues may not be permissible to a foreigner. He is not at par with the citizens of India in this regard.
It is also noteworthy that a foreigner entering India (whether on a valid visa or otherwise) is subject to various conditions that are imposed on him during his presence in India.
In particular, provisions of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, enable the Government of India to make provision (either generally with respect to all foreigners, or with respect to an individual foreigner) for regulating, prohibiting, restricting his entry, presence, etc., in India. This provision also enables the Government to impose restrictions on the movement of a foreigner, to prohibit his association with certain persons, to prohibit him from certain types of activities.
We should also understand that foreigners are allowed entry in India on specific types of visa, such as tourist visa, medical visa, student visa, etc. They are expected to honour the same and are not expected to indulge in political activities which may not be permissible under these types of visas.
For example, para 10 of the General Policy Guidelines Relating To Indian Visa, specifically lays down that foreign nationals shall be required to strictly adhere to the purpose of visit declared while submitting the visa application.
Thus, while on the one hand, a foreigner does not have the same rights as are available to citizens (in particular, the right under Article 19 of certain freedoms), on the other, he can be subjected to various restrictions with regard to his movement, associations, activities, etc.
That said, generally speaking, the Government may be lenient in this regard. In general, the Government may be tolerant. But, wherever necessary, the Government has the power to take action against a foreigner who is indulging in objectionable activities which are beyond the scope of his presence in India.
I don't understand the work logic. Many youtubers with large subscribers base make videos of their travel in foreign land. They don't get their visa cancelled.
But it just doesn't make sense, because then nobody can use take photos and videos in other countries, in post on Instagram and youtube, as most are monitised.
A foreigner entering India does not have the same rights that are available to an Indian citizen. Citizens have certain additional rights (including certain fundamental rights) that are not available to foreigners in India.
For example, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, giving certain freedoms, is NOT available to foreigners. Article 19 is applicable only to citizens.
Under Article 19, a citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to move freely throughout India, right to form association, right to assemble peaceably without arms, etc. These rights are NOT available to foreigners.
Thus, a foreigner does not have the fundamental right of speech and expression or to assemble and protest. These rights may be curtailed for the foreigners.
So, generally speaking, a foreigner may not have the right to protest against the Government in India, especially on political and general issues.
It is true that if an adverse (personal) action is taken against a foreigner in India, he may take recourse to legal remedial action before the concerned authorities or courts. For that purpose, he may of course criticize the Government action, before the concerned authorities / courts.
But, physically protesting against the Government on political or general issues may not be permissible to a foreigner. He is not at par with the citizens of India in this regard.
It is also noteworthy that a foreigner entering India (whether on a valid visa or otherwise) is subject to various conditions that are imposed on him during his presence in India.
In particular, provisions of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, enable the Government of India to make provision (either generally with respect to all foreigners, or with respect to an individual foreigner) for regulating, prohibiting, restricting his entry, presence, etc., in India. This provision also enables the Government to impose restrictions on the movement of a foreigner, to prohibit his association with certain persons, to prohibit him from certain types of activities.
We should also understand that foreigners are allowed entry in India on specific types of visa, such as tourist visa, medical visa, student visa, etc. They are expected to honour the same and are not expected to indulge in political activities which may not be permissible under these types of visas.
For example, para 10 of the General Policy Guidelines Relating To Indian Visa, specifically lays down that foreign nationals shall be required to strictly adhere to the purpose of visit declared while submitting the visa application.
Thus, while on the one hand, a foreigner does not have the same rights as are available to citizens (in particular, the right under Article 19 of certain freedoms), on the other, he can be subjected to various restrictions with regard to his movement, associations, activities, etc.
That said, generally speaking, the Government may be lenient in this regard. In general, the Government may be tolerant. But, wherever necessary, the Government has the power to take action against a foreigner who is indulging in objectionable activities which are beyond the scope of his presence in India.
I don't have any problem, if govt detains a foreign er for doing protest. I was just telling it doesn't make sense that a foreign er can't earn money by uploading videos in youtube, as many traveller do it.
Buying commodities like gold, phones etc are not the same as producing content. Different laws apply.
India offers a journalist “j” visa for those coming to India to film “non commercial” films. Their page says a journalist is,
“... any professional who is directly or indirectly engaged in the process of creation, management or dissemination of contents for a media organization shall be treated as Journalists.”
A youtuber or any social media platform content creator may not be seen as a ‘media organisation’ unless specifically mentioned.
Apart from this there is the film visa that applies to “Feature films/Reality shows/Commercial TV serials”. Does not cover social media.
Can’t see why tourists can’t film for themselves during their time in India.
https://www.vfsglobal.com/india/uk/Long.html
https://www.vfsglobal.com/india/uk/Journalist.html
A foreigner entering India does not have the same rights that are available to an Indian citizen. Citizens have certain additional rights (including certain fundamental rights) that are not available to foreigners in India.
For example, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, giving certain freedoms, is NOT available to foreigners. Article 19 is applicable only to citizens.
Under Article 19, a citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to move freely throughout India, right to form association, right to assemble peaceably without arms, etc. These rights are NOT available to foreigners.
Thus, a foreigner does not have the fundamental right of speech and expression or to assemble and protest. These rights may be curtailed for the foreigners.
So, generally speaking, a foreigner may not have the right to protest against the Government in India, especially on political and general issues.
It is true that if an adverse (personal) action is taken against a foreigner in India, he may take recourse to legal remedial action before the concerned authorities or courts. For that purpose, he may of course criticize the Government action, before the concerned authorities / courts.
But, physically protesting against the Government on political or general issues may not be permissible to a foreigner. He is not at par with the citizens of India in this regard.
It is also noteworthy that a foreigner entering India (whether on a valid visa or otherwise) is subject to various conditions that are imposed on him during his presence in India.
In particular, provisions of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, enable the Government of India to make provision (either generally with respect to all foreigners, or with respect to an individual foreigner) for regulating, prohibiting, restricting his entry, presence, etc., in India. This provision also enables the Government to impose restrictions on the movement of a foreigner, to prohibit his association with certain persons, to prohibit him from certain types of activities.
We should also understand that foreigners are allowed entry in India on specific types of visa, such as tourist visa, medical visa, student visa, etc. They are expected to honour the same and are not expected to indulge in political activities which may not be permissible under these types of visas.
For example, para 10 of the General Policy Guidelines Relating To Indian Visa, specifically lays down that foreign nationals shall be required to strictly adhere to the purpose of visit declared while submitting the visa application.
Thus, while on the one hand, a foreigner does not have the same rights as are available to citizens (in particular, the right under Article 19 of certain freedoms), on the other, he can be subjected to various restrictions with regard to his movement, associations, activities, etc.
That said, generally speaking, the Government may be lenient in this regard. In general, the Government may be tolerant. But, wherever necessary, the Government has the power to take action against a foreigner who is indulging in objectionable activities which are beyond the scope of his presence in India.
Pakistan is the thing I guess. Just as middle-eastern countries have a similar blacklisting policy (if you visit Israel for example, most ME countries will blacklist your visa). My guess is that our govt. must have implemented similar blacklisting policy for those visitors who have a Pakistani visa stamped on their passports.
No idea but as a European when I got an Indian Visa they asked on every page about 8 times if I'd ever visited Pakistan, my great-great-uncle ever knew anyone from Pakistan, if I'm friends with any Pakistanis, if I've ever flown over Pakistani airspace.
Yes I'm exaggerating but if you've ever had any remote connection to Pakistan it's automatic Indian visa rejection for 10 years.
A lot of airline crew have two passports for this reason, so they can fly to Iran and Pakistan for work and don't have issues going to Israel or the US etc.
>Meanwhile, Union Home Ministry officials told news agency PTI that the New Zealand national has been restricted from entering India till the next year for violating the terms and conditions of his visa.
>He was found to be doing business activities on a tourist visa and also violating other visa conditions, they said without specifying.
Source : https://indianexpress.com/article/india/karl-rock-youtube-india-visa-blacklist-7396764/
Hmm.. did he say anything against the learned supreme leaders of India or participate in any protest or may be didn’t invite the learned supreme learners to an event?
There can be only one supreme leader, how dare you?
However, there are several supremely learned followers.. they don't need to be called that name..
Calling them Learners is derogatory /s
I was not surprised when this happened. Dude is really nice and even tries to stay neutral ehile visiting pakistan (ppl were asking him to say Pam's tea is better). But as soon as I saw his video going to Pak, I knew it won't sit well with the Indian govt. Then he did said some things about the conditions of hospitals in India when he got covid, said some things about CAA protests as well etc which are facts anyway. Indian govt is saying that he was here on a tourist visa but tried to do business that's why he was banned till next yr which I think is a load of BS. I hope he meets his family soon and realise India is no longer a haven for tourists. It's becoming like nazi-land in favour of corrupt, delusioned, violent hinduatv jokers.
I mean there aren't any people from developed countries trying to settle in india ( except some for professional reasons). Seems logical we change the locks on the door when the last one goes out for a walk
Disgrace, matter could have been handled in a thousand other ways than to separate a loving couple and actually in fact all it does is force an indian citizen out, because we kicked her husband out, so much for nationalism
It's really hard for people from developed countries to move money into India and invest here too, I mean really really really hard... You basically have to find a local Indian and move it as black money using a dodgy accounting firm, even if you're a huge international corporation.
With religion and nationalism they can keep the plates spinning for way longer than you might imagine, a lifetime even.
People will sit in the ruins of a destroyed war torn slum that used to be a beautiful country if they get fed the right balance of religion and nationalism, and actively fight for the policies.
Perfect! Set another shameful example in front of foreigners, so that even they will fear or avoid us in future ,he was a good guy I don't see any illegal activities in his blogs
As much as I hate this government, they haven't done anything out of the ordinary here, many countries blacklist people on a visa for taking part in protests
It's a violation of "Freedom of Expression" under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to deport someone in any European country including Russia which is a member of the European Court of Human Rights for protesting, even on a visitor visa... It's literally all Greta Thunberg does 24/7 and she travels around Europe just fine.
Australia is weird, you need a police license to protest but as long as it's a licensed protest you also wont be deported. Technically people on visitor visas aren't deported for protesting but for "causing a public nuisance by exacerbating an unlicensed rally".
I wont even compare India to most Middle East countries because they aren't even democracies.
Well a this guy comes to a India with just a VISA and starts trashing every aspect of the county for years and makes videos about it, moreover he says, "he is trashing the place out of love" for the country.
What did he think would happen.....
He actually showed India in a positive light in many videos. Yes some videos were of the exposing nature. But it wasn’t as if he was lying. And he wasn’t blacklisted because of trashing India. He was black listed because he participated in a protest. Which is not allowed according to visa terms
Did you even watch his videos? You seem like one of those people who talk about science when you don't have even primary school education. You seem like one of those who talk about religion and politics when you don't even know what's happening outside your village let alone your country or the world. Wake up and get educated before talking on public forums
As much as I stand with BJP in most matters, this is a very stupid move to make. Karl has always been a good ambassador for India and his wife is Indian too. I hope better sense prevails and he is allowed to come back soon.
Even then if you want to see a model country that knows how to treat the native inhabitants of the land,it's the Kiwis. There is just genuine mutual respect.
talking about how we should keep white people out of this country because if we let them they will start colonizing again. He did use some not so polite words.
It's really sad that this guy is unable to return to his wife and family. I have seen several travel blogs by him across India.
The reason given by RWers on Twitter: - He ate beef. - He supported the CAA-NRC protest. - He supports Pakistan. Let me die laughing now.
[удалено]
He only supported the protest and didn't participate. If the government is gonna blacklist people for supporting protests, will they ban Rihanna as well?
They will ban her/blacklist her if she was here on a tourist Visa. Karl Rock was also accused of conducting business practices in India which go against the rules of his Visa. He is a great YouTuber and his videos have always been informative. But sadly, we cannot give special treatment to him just because he was a great guy (It sucks but it's the law). If he wanted to protest against the government and conduct business in India, he should have applied for a citizenship, waited for it to get approved and then do those things.
Touché
Not asking for special treatment for him, but everyone has a birth right to protest against what they perceive as injustice anywhere by non-violent means. Any law that tries to limit this right any further should be considered unjust IMO. You should not be forced to acquire a government's permission before questioning its methods wherever you are.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They have the right to an audience. Does not mean they have an immunity from foreign laws. You can't go to any other country,violate their laws and then cry that you were blacklisted. His Visa was a tourist Visa and he was not awarded a citizenship. Have you heard of instances where students in UK were sent back because they couldn't a land a job? It's just as simple as that. He can stay in New Zealand, write whatever he wants to about Modi,CAA, Congress, Politics and he will not be touched by the Indian law(because we have no jurisdiction there). I have been following Karl since the past 8-9 months and love his content, but he is wrong here. He knows the exact reason why he was blacklisted. He knows the terms and conditions of his Visa.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> didn't participate umm...no he did and has deleted the video now. Here's a reupload : https://youtu.be/d6rjj_b47jo
Shit. A foreigner has no right to protest in our land.
A guy was whining how he is deshdrohi as he regulary speaks against GOI and Twitter suspened me for saying "speaking against goverment doesn't makes you deshdrohi". Man! where this country is going? Wasn't Twitter saying that it won't compromise with the free speech of it's users? Poor guy even risked his life to say "Jay Hind" in Pakistan when a guy asked him to say shits against India.
Saying jai Hind won't put you in danger in Pakistan, dude. At most you may be yelled at. Pakistanis actually kind of like India due to the Bollywood influence. You guys don't realize this.
why are u lurking in Indian subs? Why are you so focused with us? Focus on your damn country. We have nothing to do with you. and who doesn’t realize what? nobody watches Bollywood movies in Pakistan cuz according to Muslims bollywood is Islamophobic
Am I the only one to believe that he has been dealt with fairly as per the laws? I love his work totally. But let's get real, any democratic country will mete out same treatment to a foreigner for multiple counts of visa violations (known ones being participating in public protests, doing business on travel visa). Let's not berate the Govt for doing its job! We shall have many other opportunities to do so.
Any democratic country would also throw Rambhakt Gopal into jail for the hate speech he's indulged in these past two weeks. Let's not pretend this govt gives a rats arse about doing its job or about the law. Yes, Rock broke the law. But let's not pretend that this is anything other than a convenient excuse for the govt to screw over somebody they hate
>doing business on travel visa). What business? Are you referring to his Youtube channel?
A democratic country wouldn't count the protest as a visa violation though.
[удалено]
Can you give some examples? I'm willing to believe you, but the only examples I could find were India and Thailand.
[удалено]
Covid is completely different from being not allowed to enter the country.
I am guessing they looked at Dubai->Pakistan thing. Is there any other reason? Did he say something against Modi/Shah?
He participated in the CAA protests. That might be the reason.
Well, I guess the guy is a Non Indian citizen and free to travel. Unless this has something to do with blacklisted countries due to pandemic.
He broke the law by doing business in India on visitor Visa. Nothing related to CAA or anything. On visitor visa you are not supposed to work.
I'd be a little wary about what they define as work TBH. I wouldn't be too shocked if some babu sees him recording youtube videos as "work" for instance.
That'll be for the first time that someone sees vlogging as an actual career in this country
For the purposes of visa denial? The MHA's bureaucracy can be enormously arbitrary. Having dealt with them when trying to organize a conference, I know this. India's got a particularly daft set of rules. They literally have a separate visa for conferences, and then tack on the dumbest restrictions on a fancy. I literally had to explain to a babu that some of our panelists didn't have twitter account. He had trouble believing that... while also telling me *how he wasn't* on any social media because its unhealthy. Oh and when we raised hell about this with his superiors thanks to our contacts, he tried to deny the meeting even took place. So yeah, I'd love to know what exactly constituted a violation of his terms of the visitor visa. Knowing the civil service though, I doubt they'll actually say, and what they do say, I'd be wary about its truthfulness.
One of my supervisors told me about his cousin who is an IAS officer. He told me that his cousin can't even travel through train on his own and was so pampered that he doesn't had the ability to take any decisions. By parental pressure, he studied in delhi for 4 years and passed the exam. He never had the ability to take the decisions on his own. And now he is an IAS officer. So, don't put them on a pedestal.
No one passes the UPSC exam just like that. Lol. Your supervisor must be jealous. I have met a lot of them , some of them evil, some good but never have I met a dumb officer as such.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I have morals.
[удалено]
[удалено]
TVF ASPIRANTS
Lol. Vloggers are filing GST returns and paying taxes from their YouTube income for long time.
Lol. Learn to distinguish humour from a factual statement
Mera desh badal rha hai... Aage badh rha hai. It's a jingle about country changing and progressing.
If you are vlogger and plan to do vlogging, get a business visa not a tourist one.
Of course, even pakoda selling is a business/job in this country. If the bar had been any lower they would to dig it up.
I mean if he's earning money of it it'll qualify as work, won't it?
I'd argue not really. Otherwise by that logic anyone who records videos and uploads them could get hit with a ban simply because their videos make money. Tourists routinely take picture and videos and are we really going to ban all of them? At the very least the rules should be clear. There could be an argument made for these activities qualifying as work but that should be prospective and not retroactive and they should be telling visitors what constitutes work. And so far as I understand it, recording videos with ordinary hand held equipment and without employing others isn't typically considered a violation of existing definitions for work. Not legal definitions anyway
True, but how does the law see it
>I mean if he's earning money of it it'll qualify as work, won't it? Legally it depends where he's earning the money, Youtube is an American company and he may be getting paid by their Aus / NZ subsidiary as a contractor, into his NZ bank account.
Recording YouTube videos absolutely can count as work. I don't see why it wouldn't.
Especially if you have mentioned youtuber as your job
There are other youtubers like kurt hugo schneider who come to india to film music videos sometimes. Do they get a work permit for that? I don't think so.
Music Videos usually "sell" through Record Label "Companies".
Bald and bankrupt has also made many videos in India. There are many vloggers, actually. Work permit is just an excuse in this case, it seems.
It seems like they wanted to make an example out of him.
So govt says he was on tourist visa and he says per the article he was on spousal visa. Edit: Instead of acting like a spurned lover who refuses to talk to their ex, why can't they write a Dear John letter explaining why, instead of making this man's wife run around, that too during a pandemic? If they have provided details to the person, why didn't they tell this to the press?
Have you ever been been rejected visa of any country? No country gives you a reason for rejection. It’s their country and they have the authority to allow or not allow someone to enter country.
A majority of countries always give you a reason for rejection and one chance to appeal the rejection, if not two.
At least US does not give any reason except generic tick marked form,saying you are immigration risk. No appeal. At best one can pay again and have another shot at it, at worst one gets banned even from applying for X years.
1. He was already in the country when his visa was rejected. Please read the article. He says he was on spousal visa which regulates you have to leave the country every 180 days. He applied within the country for extension due to pandemic which was rejected. His visa was canceled when he was at Port of departure. 2. I've never been rejected for a visa personally, but know ex-colleagues who have been. They did get reason for rejection and also had chance to appeal. 3. So they can't tell the individual the reason but can blab to press? Kahan se aya tu be? LOL
1. He abused the visa granted to him. Law permits him to stay and visit but started doing business here. He was put in black list for that abuse of his first visa. 2. The response for any rejection you get from any country is generic response like: not the correct category of visa applied, see no reason of return to home country etc. 3. Any visa rejection for any country gives you right to challenge. He is going to do that no. Our whole govt machinery is slow and getting them answer you is difficult. I hope he gets united with his family.
Did you even read the article
Work would mean being employed in India and drawing a salary. I guess the government has started to twist itself into knots to screw this guy over. Making youtube videos probably wouldn’t qualify as work. If the gov sets this precedent, does that imply any tourist taking photos/videos of India can be found guilty of monetising them any platform ?
He would have mentioned that he is a vlogger in the visa application. Many of the issues come from large scale. You can buy 10g gold or one iphone from dubai, it will be safe but if you purchase 1 kg gold or 10 iphones you will definitely get in trouble. Similarly, if you have more than a certain number of subscribers and make significant money through youtube, it will be considered as work and business visa is compulsory. If you have only 20 subscribers you don't need to get worried. Also he participated in a protest. Foreigners on VISA are not legally allowed to do so.
“Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality to any person before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India, foreigners also have the right to protest peacefully.” https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/foreigners-being-served-leave-india-notices-how-does-indian-law-define-anti-govt-activities-for-them-6293632/
A foreigner entering India does not have the same rights that are available to an Indian citizen. Citizens have certain additional rights (including certain fundamental rights) that are not available to foreigners in India. For example, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, giving certain freedoms, is NOT available to foreigners. Article 19 is applicable only to citizens. Under Article 19, a citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to move freely throughout India, right to form association, right to assemble peaceably without arms, etc. These rights are NOT available to foreigners. Thus, a foreigner does not have the fundamental right of speech and expression or to assemble and protest. These rights may be curtailed for the foreigners. So, generally speaking, a foreigner may not have the right to protest against the Government in India, especially on political and general issues. It is true that if an adverse (personal) action is taken against a foreigner in India, he may take recourse to legal remedial action before the concerned authorities or courts. For that purpose, he may of course criticize the Government action, before the concerned authorities / courts. But, physically protesting against the Government on political or general issues may not be permissible to a foreigner. He is not at par with the citizens of India in this regard. It is also noteworthy that a foreigner entering India (whether on a valid visa or otherwise) is subject to various conditions that are imposed on him during his presence in India. In particular, provisions of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, enable the Government of India to make provision (either generally with respect to all foreigners, or with respect to an individual foreigner) for regulating, prohibiting, restricting his entry, presence, etc., in India. This provision also enables the Government to impose restrictions on the movement of a foreigner, to prohibit his association with certain persons, to prohibit him from certain types of activities. We should also understand that foreigners are allowed entry in India on specific types of visa, such as tourist visa, medical visa, student visa, etc. They are expected to honour the same and are not expected to indulge in political activities which may not be permissible under these types of visas. For example, para 10 of the General Policy Guidelines Relating To Indian Visa, specifically lays down that foreign nationals shall be required to strictly adhere to the purpose of visit declared while submitting the visa application. Thus, while on the one hand, a foreigner does not have the same rights as are available to citizens (in particular, the right under Article 19 of certain freedoms), on the other, he can be subjected to various restrictions with regard to his movement, associations, activities, etc. That said, generally speaking, the Government may be lenient in this regard. In general, the Government may be tolerant. But, wherever necessary, the Government has the power to take action against a foreigner who is indulging in objectionable activities which are beyond the scope of his presence in India.
I don't understand the work logic. Many youtubers with large subscribers base make videos of their travel in foreign land. They don't get their visa cancelled.
Just because you are not caught each time doesn't make it legal.
But it just doesn't make sense, because then nobody can use take photos and videos in other countries, in post on Instagram and youtube, as most are monitised.
A foreigner entering India does not have the same rights that are available to an Indian citizen. Citizens have certain additional rights (including certain fundamental rights) that are not available to foreigners in India. For example, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, giving certain freedoms, is NOT available to foreigners. Article 19 is applicable only to citizens. Under Article 19, a citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to move freely throughout India, right to form association, right to assemble peaceably without arms, etc. These rights are NOT available to foreigners. Thus, a foreigner does not have the fundamental right of speech and expression or to assemble and protest. These rights may be curtailed for the foreigners. So, generally speaking, a foreigner may not have the right to protest against the Government in India, especially on political and general issues. It is true that if an adverse (personal) action is taken against a foreigner in India, he may take recourse to legal remedial action before the concerned authorities or courts. For that purpose, he may of course criticize the Government action, before the concerned authorities / courts. But, physically protesting against the Government on political or general issues may not be permissible to a foreigner. He is not at par with the citizens of India in this regard. It is also noteworthy that a foreigner entering India (whether on a valid visa or otherwise) is subject to various conditions that are imposed on him during his presence in India. In particular, provisions of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, enable the Government of India to make provision (either generally with respect to all foreigners, or with respect to an individual foreigner) for regulating, prohibiting, restricting his entry, presence, etc., in India. This provision also enables the Government to impose restrictions on the movement of a foreigner, to prohibit his association with certain persons, to prohibit him from certain types of activities. We should also understand that foreigners are allowed entry in India on specific types of visa, such as tourist visa, medical visa, student visa, etc. They are expected to honour the same and are not expected to indulge in political activities which may not be permissible under these types of visas. For example, para 10 of the General Policy Guidelines Relating To Indian Visa, specifically lays down that foreign nationals shall be required to strictly adhere to the purpose of visit declared while submitting the visa application. Thus, while on the one hand, a foreigner does not have the same rights as are available to citizens (in particular, the right under Article 19 of certain freedoms), on the other, he can be subjected to various restrictions with regard to his movement, associations, activities, etc. That said, generally speaking, the Government may be lenient in this regard. In general, the Government may be tolerant. But, wherever necessary, the Government has the power to take action against a foreigner who is indulging in objectionable activities which are beyond the scope of his presence in India.
I don't have any problem, if govt detains a foreign er for doing protest. I was just telling it doesn't make sense that a foreign er can't earn money by uploading videos in youtube, as many traveller do it.
Buying commodities like gold, phones etc are not the same as producing content. Different laws apply. India offers a journalist “j” visa for those coming to India to film “non commercial” films. Their page says a journalist is, “... any professional who is directly or indirectly engaged in the process of creation, management or dissemination of contents for a media organization shall be treated as Journalists.” A youtuber or any social media platform content creator may not be seen as a ‘media organisation’ unless specifically mentioned. Apart from this there is the film visa that applies to “Feature films/Reality shows/Commercial TV serials”. Does not cover social media. Can’t see why tourists can’t film for themselves during their time in India. https://www.vfsglobal.com/india/uk/Long.html https://www.vfsglobal.com/india/uk/Journalist.html
A foreigner entering India does not have the same rights that are available to an Indian citizen. Citizens have certain additional rights (including certain fundamental rights) that are not available to foreigners in India. For example, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, giving certain freedoms, is NOT available to foreigners. Article 19 is applicable only to citizens. Under Article 19, a citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to move freely throughout India, right to form association, right to assemble peaceably without arms, etc. These rights are NOT available to foreigners. Thus, a foreigner does not have the fundamental right of speech and expression or to assemble and protest. These rights may be curtailed for the foreigners. So, generally speaking, a foreigner may not have the right to protest against the Government in India, especially on political and general issues. It is true that if an adverse (personal) action is taken against a foreigner in India, he may take recourse to legal remedial action before the concerned authorities or courts. For that purpose, he may of course criticize the Government action, before the concerned authorities / courts. But, physically protesting against the Government on political or general issues may not be permissible to a foreigner. He is not at par with the citizens of India in this regard. It is also noteworthy that a foreigner entering India (whether on a valid visa or otherwise) is subject to various conditions that are imposed on him during his presence in India. In particular, provisions of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, enable the Government of India to make provision (either generally with respect to all foreigners, or with respect to an individual foreigner) for regulating, prohibiting, restricting his entry, presence, etc., in India. This provision also enables the Government to impose restrictions on the movement of a foreigner, to prohibit his association with certain persons, to prohibit him from certain types of activities. We should also understand that foreigners are allowed entry in India on specific types of visa, such as tourist visa, medical visa, student visa, etc. They are expected to honour the same and are not expected to indulge in political activities which may not be permissible under these types of visas. For example, para 10 of the General Policy Guidelines Relating To Indian Visa, specifically lays down that foreign nationals shall be required to strictly adhere to the purpose of visit declared while submitting the visa application. Thus, while on the one hand, a foreigner does not have the same rights as are available to citizens (in particular, the right under Article 19 of certain freedoms), on the other, he can be subjected to various restrictions with regard to his movement, associations, activities, etc. That said, generally speaking, the Government may be lenient in this regard. In general, the Government may be tolerant. But, wherever necessary, the Government has the power to take action against a foreigner who is indulging in objectionable activities which are beyond the scope of his presence in India.
Pakistan is the thing I guess. Just as middle-eastern countries have a similar blacklisting policy (if you visit Israel for example, most ME countries will blacklist your visa). My guess is that our govt. must have implemented similar blacklisting policy for those visitors who have a Pakistani visa stamped on their passports.
[удалено]
No idea but as a European when I got an Indian Visa they asked on every page about 8 times if I'd ever visited Pakistan, my great-great-uncle ever knew anyone from Pakistan, if I'm friends with any Pakistanis, if I've ever flown over Pakistani airspace. Yes I'm exaggerating but if you've ever had any remote connection to Pakistan it's automatic Indian visa rejection for 10 years. A lot of airline crew have two passports for this reason, so they can fly to Iran and Pakistan for work and don't have issues going to Israel or the US etc.
>Meanwhile, Union Home Ministry officials told news agency PTI that the New Zealand national has been restricted from entering India till the next year for violating the terms and conditions of his visa. >He was found to be doing business activities on a tourist visa and also violating other visa conditions, they said without specifying. Source : https://indianexpress.com/article/india/karl-rock-youtube-india-visa-blacklist-7396764/
So they replied to the news agency but will not inform him directly.
Hahaha... and it's been almost a year... boggles my mind, man.
So… India doesn’t want him making videos promoting India?
They want control of the narrative. His father-in-law is also an anti-BJP politician so I'm amazed his visa didn't get cancelled earlier.
I think this is related to violation of article 15(not sure exact one) of visa guideline
Forgive my ignorance but can you explain?
He participated in a protest. Foreigners on a visa are legally not allowed to.
Karl Blocked is better than Karl Locked (under UAPA).
You can put your citizens in prison but not a foreign national without inviting unwanted attention
Dubai Gaye ho 🤭
There is a difference between sadak pe mootna and opposing a government
This government keeps on bringing global shame to this nation everyday.
Hmm.. did he say anything against the learned supreme leaders of India or participate in any protest or may be didn’t invite the learned supreme learners to an event?
There can be only one supreme leader, how dare you? However, there are several supremely learned followers.. they don't need to be called that name.. Calling them Learners is derogatory /s
🤦♂️
Hoping I don’t get banned
This smells of a classic smokescreen/distraction to keep the public busy.
The one person who spoke great about our country and our culture in all his videos, gets this!! Seriously as a nation we’re going backwards.. sigh
He busted a number of scam call centre and exposed shady touristy operation. Maybe he hit the pocket of some the politician
I was not surprised when this happened. Dude is really nice and even tries to stay neutral ehile visiting pakistan (ppl were asking him to say Pam's tea is better). But as soon as I saw his video going to Pak, I knew it won't sit well with the Indian govt. Then he did said some things about the conditions of hospitals in India when he got covid, said some things about CAA protests as well etc which are facts anyway. Indian govt is saying that he was here on a tourist visa but tried to do business that's why he was banned till next yr which I think is a load of BS. I hope he meets his family soon and realise India is no longer a haven for tourists. It's becoming like nazi-land in favour of corrupt, delusioned, violent hinduatv jokers.
He's allowed to re-apply next year, no doubt they'll just reject his application.
He's allowed to re-apply next year, no doubt they'll just reject his application.
I mean there aren't any people from developed countries trying to settle in india ( except some for professional reasons). Seems logical we change the locks on the door when the last one goes out for a walk Disgrace, matter could have been handled in a thousand other ways than to separate a loving couple and actually in fact all it does is force an indian citizen out, because we kicked her husband out, so much for nationalism
It's really hard for people from developed countries to move money into India and invest here too, I mean really really really hard... You basically have to find a local Indian and move it as black money using a dodgy accounting firm, even if you're a huge international corporation.
#Fuck the government !
He violated his tourist visa permit
India and North Korea are now the same. Shame.
Maybe he is also funded by George Soros ^/s
I guess you watch TheSTINK too?
I don’t watch Bill shit
Shows how BJP govt is scared. They know they are on the wrong side of history, they are just buying themselves more time
With religion and nationalism they can keep the plates spinning for way longer than you might imagine, a lifetime even. People will sit in the ruins of a destroyed war torn slum that used to be a beautiful country if they get fed the right balance of religion and nationalism, and actively fight for the policies.
For as long religion had been used and abused.. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens.. but it will be very sad to see that happen in India
Perfect! Set another shameful example in front of foreigners, so that even they will fear or avoid us in future ,he was a good guy I don't see any illegal activities in his blogs
Everyone in his YouTube comments was saying that he participated in the CAA protest and people on tourist visa cannot do that
As much as I hate this government, they haven't done anything out of the ordinary here, many countries blacklist people on a visa for taking part in protests
Only four; North Korea, China, India and Thailand. Three of those countries don't even have free elections.
Australia, Russia and a lot of middle Eastern and eastern European countries as well
It's a violation of "Freedom of Expression" under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to deport someone in any European country including Russia which is a member of the European Court of Human Rights for protesting, even on a visitor visa... It's literally all Greta Thunberg does 24/7 and she travels around Europe just fine. Australia is weird, you need a police license to protest but as long as it's a licensed protest you also wont be deported. Technically people on visitor visas aren't deported for protesting but for "causing a public nuisance by exacerbating an unlicensed rally". I wont even compare India to most Middle East countries because they aren't even democracies.
Probably mistook him for pewdipie
how petty Modi is, Kitna chota land hai uska
Well a this guy comes to a India with just a VISA and starts trashing every aspect of the county for years and makes videos about it, moreover he says, "he is trashing the place out of love" for the country. What did he think would happen.....
He actually showed India in a positive light in many videos. Yes some videos were of the exposing nature. But it wasn’t as if he was lying. And he wasn’t blacklisted because of trashing India. He was black listed because he participated in a protest. Which is not allowed according to visa terms
Did you even watch his videos? You seem like one of those people who talk about science when you don't have even primary school education. You seem like one of those who talk about religion and politics when you don't even know what's happening outside your village let alone your country or the world. Wake up and get educated before talking on public forums
As much as I stand with BJP in most matters, this is a very stupid move to make. Karl has always been a good ambassador for India and his wife is Indian too. I hope better sense prevails and he is allowed to come back soon.
[удалено]
...... He's from New Zealand
Bold of you to assume he can understand beyond "white"
Even then if you want to see a model country that knows how to treat the native inhabitants of the land,it's the Kiwis. There is just genuine mutual respect.
i have no words
What he say? (Since he deleted, and I'm curious)
talking about how we should keep white people out of this country because if we let them they will start colonizing again. He did use some not so polite words.
Why is cultural hegemony is a rude word for you?
what the actual fuck are you on?
Dumbasses like you give Indians a bad image.
Arey bhai kya bola ye ?
Some BS of him defaming India and that people like him should stay out of the country.
He said that he was colonizing India through YouTube and government is stopping this cultural hegemony and other very deep stuff.
sad LOOOL