The Chinese dissidents conference in Dharamshala is turning out to be a bigger headache for New Delhi than the government bargained for. The original aim must have been simple: To reaffirm India's posture as a beacon of democracy in a troubled neighbourhood, while getting in a jab or two at Beijing without really rocking the boat. Then, in the aftermath of the Masood Azhar controversy, it quickly went from being an Indian show of strength to little more than a sheepish diplomatic shrug.

By all accounts the conference, led by Tiananmen Square activist Yang Jianli, began on April 28, and featured a large congregation of the sorts of people Beijing would much rather remain quiet: Tibetans, Buddhists, Muslims and Falun Gong adherents among others. Despite the rather public revocation of Uyghur rebel leader Dolkun Isa's visa, the Hindustan Times even reported on Sunday that "no less than eight Chinese activists and a prominent Uyghur leader" are participating in the conference.

That report, by HT's executive editor Shishir Gupta, suggests that the entire narrative around the dissidents conference is wrong. For one the report insists that New Delhi did not cave into Chinese pressure in withdrawing Isa's visa. In fact,it claims that the decision had "nothing to do with India's Chinese policy."

Instead, the report claims that a bureaucratic error was responsible for the visa first being issued to Isa – whom China insists is a terrorist – and later being withdrawn.

"The e-visa was erroneously issued to Isa on April 6 by the department of immigration as an Interpol red corner notice issued against him in 1998 did not show up in official records.

Intelligence Bureau director Dineshwar Sharma severely upbraided the immigration department for its mistake and directed that all records be reconciled with those of agencies such as the CBI and Enforcement Directorate, sources said."

— Hindustan Times report.

It also claims that visas denied to two other Chinese dissidents were rejected on technical grounds. In one case, a copy of an uploaded passport was not legible and in another, there were discrepancies related to the uploaded passport. The report even quotes a "senior North Block official" saying the immigration department did not even know that they were Chinese dissidents when the visas were rejected.

Nevertheless, it says, almost all of the 69 foreign delegates, including the president of the Uyghur American Association traveled and attended the conference on tourist visas.

This doesn't quite jibe with the briefing given by the Ministry of External Affairs on April 28, however. Vikas Swarup, the ministry's spokesperson, had claimed then that Isa had "suppressed" the fact that he was coming to attend a conference in India, "something that a tourist visa does not permit".

That leaves things in an even more confusing place, at least regarding the official line on these matters. Was Isa denied a visa because he suppressed facts and applied for a tourist visa? Or was it because of the Red Corner notice? Did the other conference attendees arrive in India on tourist visas? And if this event was obviously going to be a sensitive one, why weren't the immigration officers made aware of the potential diplomatic ramifications of clearing or rejecting visa applications?