Reading the comments following my post yesterday on Modi, as well as following the comments on other websites, I have decided to do a follow up post on the situation so that I may forward a theory. Several of you think of it as a “snub against India” the way the U.S. seemingly bipassed normal channels in order to issue this censure of Modi. The word “hypocrisy” has also been thrown around quite liberally. Some of you ask, why deny Modi but not the President of China or the heads of states of other countries that have been known to commit religious or human rights violations? Let us look at the political ramifications of what happened yesterday by assuming for a moment that the U.S. and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (or his representative) HAD discussed the issue PRIOR to the Modi decision and that this WASN’T a surprise at all but a carefully planned political bushwhack.
Let’s first look at this article in Rediff:
Though sources close to the Gujarat government in Gandhinagar and the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership in New Delhi indicated to rediff.com correspondents that the decision to deny Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi a visa to visit the United States was taken at the embassy level in New Delhi, without consultation with the State Department in Washington, DC, senior Bush administration officials have told rediff.com that this is not correct.
The officials said the decision to deny Modi a visa was taken at the highest levels and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was apprised every step of the way during her travels in Asia.
“She is the Secretary of State,” the officials said, “and she knows all about what is going on that is important at the State Department.”
The officials acknowledged there were security concerns over the visit because of the large protests that were being organised and also because some of the cities where Modi was slated to speak had not been aware what a controversial figure he was and may not have been taking the necessary security precautions in terms of assigning police personnel and taking other preventive measures.
Okay, so we have established that this was probably a high level decision on the U.S. side. If the U.S. wants to be seen around the world (especially in the eyes of Muslims) as fair and just, and not always hypocritical, then they have to start being consistent in their policy toward human rights violators. The decision to deny Modi’s visa occurred in the same week that Bush’s favorite adviser, Karen Hughes, was promoted to a position in the State Department whose sole purpose is to improve the image of America in the Muslim world. I respect the political minds in the White House too much to think that this is a mere coincidence. By punishing Modi, who violated the rights of Muslims, this gives Hughes new material to work with. Keep in mind also that Rice was just in India for direct talks with the Prime Minister:
Maintaining that the United States has a “very good relationship” with India, the White House has said that President George W Bush would welcome Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to America, but no date has been fixed yet.
“We don’t have any announcement to make at this point, but we have a very good relationship with India. The President has a very good relationship with Prime Minister Singh. And we have continued to work to strengthen that relationship,” White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said on Thursday.
The letter that was most likely responsible for bringing the Modi situation to Rice’s attention was this one sent by Congressman Joe Pitts. Note that it is dated March 7th. That is a full week before Rice’s trip to India. She had her embassy announce the decision upon leaving India however, when there would no longer be a possibility of it distracting from her other important talks. WHAT IF her and Singh DID discuss Modi and came to an understanding that it would be for the best to deny his visa? What would be the result of such a collaboration?
Modi was seen as a very senior figure in the BJP party. Prime Minister Singh belongs to the Congress Party of course. You do the math. By the U.S. censuring Modi in this way, his wings have been permanently clipped. I would think it a forgone conclusion that his OWN party will no longer allow him to rise within their ranks despite their current, vociferous protests. He has completely lost international credibility. The Congress government benefits in a second way. By launching the weakest of “official protests” they are seen to be standing up for Mother India, thereby looking better in the eyes of Indian voters. Rediff reports the Prime Minister describing this as a matter of great concern:
“I share the concern expressed in this matter on all sides of the House. When I came to know of the denial of visa to Shri Modi yesterday (Friday), I immediately instructed our external affairs minister to call the US ambassador and explain we are greatly concerned and we greatly regret the decision,” Dr Singh said. The US decision lacks senitivity and courtesy, he added.
“The American government has been informed that while we respect their sovereign right to grant and refuse visa to any person, we do not believe it is appropriate to use allegations or anything less than due legal process to make a subjective judgement,” the prime minister said.
He made it clear that his government was not treating the issue in a partisan manner but as a matter of concern over a point of principle.
“I think the government’s prompt and firm response shows our stand in this matter,” Dr Singh added.
Methinks the Prime Minister doth protest too much.
Finally, consider the fact that what makes Modi different than other world leaders, to whom the U.S. has NOT denied entry, is that Modi is not a Head of State. You should be allowed (to certain extents of course) to be a hypocrite when dealing with a Head of State because your interaction with them can lead toward a change in their policy and a drive toward democracy. That is why the U.S. deals with the leaders of corrupt regimes at all. It is not because they are always hypocrites, but because if one wants to affect change through diplomatic means (instead of always by war) you have to play with the cards you are dealt. This move just assured that Modi was sent to the bottom of the deck and we’ll never have to deal with him.
In conclusion I propose that this wasn’t a snub against India or handled in the wrong way, but rather a carefully orchestrated political dance that benefited all the players except Modi and the BJP.
abhi, Quite possible. Now that we are talking consiparacies, let me throw one too. I think Karen Hughes appointment to the post of “selling America’s good work” might also have helped do this to show how America’s foreign policy is not anti-muslim. (I shouldnt elaborate on the merit of it .. 🙂 )
You make a lot of good points. I would only say that this is not necessarily bad for the BJP. It is bad for that wing of the BJP which trumpets its anti-Muslim stance. But for BJP guys like Vajpayee, Yaswant Sinha, Jaswant Singh, who are not anti-Muslim, and were infact criticized as being to friendly to the U.S. by Indian leftists – this may improve their standing within the party.
KXB : BJP by its definition and ideology is anti minority.It’s parent organizations are the RSS and VHP.These are fascist organizations.Vajpayee is highly two faced.He is at his core a RSS man. The visa denial is a kick in the groin to the entire BJP and especially to their claim that they have more support in the US annals of power than the Congress.
George, George, George – you’re making a lot of bold claims without backing them up. I too have problems with the RSS, but how are the RSS and VHP fascist organizations? Do you know what a fascist is? Please explain, or choose your words more carefully next time.
You might be right, although I think there’s always more behind the doors than what we see in the press (except with the Iraq debate–that was pretty out in the open). The only point I would make is that this move by the U.S. benefits them strategically more than it quells Hindutva as a political force in India–i’m not granting the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on any claim to enlightened self-intereset given their track record.
Denying Modi entry into the United States is not going to make Muslims happy or atleast the muslims that US cares about who live between Morocco and Iran. If tomorrow 1 million Muslims were killed in India no one from Morocco to Iran will notice. The Gujarat pogrom was ignored in the Arab and Persian media. The US government has this foolish belief that Arabs care about Muslims living in India or Indonesia.
If those calling US hypocrite are really sincere they should calling on US to follow the same standard for others like Musharraf instead of trying to get Modi exempted like others.
As we have, Ashish.
Al Mujahid, You are thinking to narrowly on this issue. Even if it doesn’t make Muslims between Morrocco and Iran happy, it will make Muslims in South Asia and perhaps other places in the world happy. This action won’t heal the wounds but it will at least help in stopping some of the bleeding as far as the way in which the Muslim world views the U.S. Every heart and mind that the U.S. can win over is one less that will later join a terrorist movement.
On another note I’d also ask that people stay on topic in this string of comments. Too many of these posts go wildly off topic with tit for tat opinions that don’t lead anywhere. Please try to direct you comments toward the original post.
Then you must be sincere! So, I take it that you will be calling on Indian Govt. too to deny visa to Musharraf! Or best, you must have already called on Indian Govt. not to recognize Musharraf as legitimate ruler of Pakistan! Then how come Manmohan Singh met with Musharraf in New York? Or why did Atal Bihari Vajpayee invited Musharraf to Agra after the coup in Pakistan?
Before calling on US to do things shouldn’t we atleast make sure that our own Govt. is following that logic? Lots of people in the World (or atleast India) are under the impression that US Govt. is answerable to them! May be it is time to focus on our own Govt. (which we elected).
I agree, but you’re confusing a peripheral visa issue with a justice system issue.
I agree, but you’re confusing a peripheral visa issue with a justice system issue.
If it is a perpherial visa issue then why are we wasting our time, energy and prestige defending likes of Modi? Our own Prime Minister was pretty upset over the visa denial.
WHAT IF her and Singh DID discuss Modi and came to an understanding that it would be for the best to deny his visa? What would be the result of such a collaboration?
Abhi, You have forgotten the fact that the REST OF THE WORLD HATES USA.So does the majority of people in india.And the congress politicians know that a decision like this would be fully exploited by the BJP. so i don’t think that the UPA govt would have collaborated on this.
Let me propose a theory, WHAT IF there were 20 newly found oil wells in gujarat and apart from the hotelier’s meeting , modi was supposed to meet the big oil players in USA.ON that case do you think the state dept would have listened to what all the activist group think??
Ashish, Not a single person has defended Modi ANYWHERE in either THIS post or THIS string of comments. READ THE POST FULLY and then the comments following it first please.
Senthil, the rest of the world does not hate the U.S., although I am not clear where you stand on that. The BJP will not be able to exploit this as well as you think they will beyond the preliminary hate mongering.
Your oil theory is a fairytale scenario completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I am the first one to criticize the U.S. government as many SM readers know, but let’s look at this situation instead of dreaming up others.
I heard that the US denied the visa after consulting w/ the Indian National Congress. It was a move to further discredit the BJP.
Ravi Kiran has an excellent take on the whole Modi kerfuffle. Like he states succintly in his post, Denying the visa was the right thing to do :
“Yes, the fact that he is still the chief minister even after he explicitly gave instructions to his policemen not to protect the muslims who were being killed and raped by his partymen is our “internal affairâ€Â, to our eternal shame. But if the Americans won’t let such a man into their country, it is their internal affair too. Yes, he is the democratically elected chief minister of an Indian state, but that is not the Americans’ fault, it is ours.”
Read the whole thing.
I agree with ravi kiran above. It was based on politics and not principle.
Abhi,
Your point about head of state is valid. However, Jiang Zeming is not in power now. Do you think U.S. will deny visa for Jiang? I do not think u.s. will deny Jiang’s visa if he wants to visit usa. So, it’s politics and expediency and not principles.
I’m disappointed to see people here taking liberty in assuming that modi has been explicitly involved in the crimes committed during riots in Gujarat on mere allegations without any judiciary enquiry and they doesn’t grant same liberty in assuming things when they talking about others.
ab, The entire point of this post was to show that this was a political decision at its core so you are preaching to the choir by pointing it out to me. As far as Zemin, its still not a fair comparison. He was a former Head of State. The way the Chinese system works he may be even more powerful now then when he was President. Modi is a chicken-shit compared to Zemin and will always remain as such. Politics always rule, but when you can score points on principle as well you may as well take them.
Shame on Abhi. He reminds me of the turkey that got into the frying pan park and is now selecting other turkeys to be slaughtered. refer to Arundhati Roy’s speech on Jan 24 2004.
Abhi, full of himself, makes sure he is louder than anyone else in self-righteously condemning one of his own kind, thereby proving his loyalty to his land, to which he owes his allegiance. It is a wierd, selective, blinkered kind of self-righteousness that makes him blind to the butchery that the govt of his own land committs, and vociferously denounce the “religious freedom” violations that others are accused of committing.
Coward.
“So, it’s politics and expediency and not principles” ????
gimme a break. why are people so understanding when the US trashes principles and acts in pure self-interest and so ready to denounce weaker nations when they trash principles and act in pure self-interest? why the elastic yardstick?
Raja, Deep man, really deep. Everyone that visits this site regularly knows just how often I try and prove my “allegiance to my own land.” This is actually kind of funny to me. For once I am being accused of being a conservative. So this is how it feels 🙂
Here is an article published today by the Christian Science Monitor [disclaimer: I was interviewed for this article]:
I quote the above passage for two reasons. (1) it bolsters my theory that this was in fact a good way to discredit Modi (who was coming to the U.S. to raise his profile) so that he could not rise up to challenge the Congress Party at a later date and (2) That at least on this day, the U.S. was not hypocritical. They treated the IRA with the same “snub” that they treated Modi.
Abhi, From your logic (or Chris Sc Mo’s logic) Gujarat state Government is comparable to Sinn Fein how has IRA a terrorist organization …. Great !!!
For once I am being accused of being a conservative. So this is how it feels 🙂
Abhi, I think you’re too conservative, if that helps.
🙂
Any conspiracy theories on why M.I.A. is having visa problems, causing her to cancel a few shows to which she had been invited by right wing hipsters? Suspicious, given the inordinate amount of relief funds that went to Sri Lankan groups from hate websites like this one.
And how come Paul McCartney or Bono never have any visa problems? I think it’s another anti-Hindu plot that goes to the highest levels; I heard that the U.S. Secretary of the Department of P-Funk, George Clinton, was “kept aware” at every step while the decision was being made.
This whole thing is overblown and this conspiracy theory is just that – a theory.
Many groups who aligned together are not just anti-Modi but they hyper ventilate when talking/writing about the right wing of Indian politics. They fail to understand that by their very actions of “communal secularism” of past 50 years or so that is practiced in India, they give rise to likes of Modi. Modi may or may not rise in the future but a significant population of Hindus in India and abroad will continue to rise against double standards of the communal secularists on the issues of Kashmir, Uniform Civil Code, Ayodhya, prostylization by inducement and like. This visa crap is a blimp on the radar called Indian politics.
Until this double standard and half baked secularism corrects itself to a truly secular state, there will be significant presence of BJP and like forces in some form or another. (US will have to deal with it too – hence the statment by the American Ambassador to India appreciating BJP’s role in revitalizing US-India ties during Vajpayee’s tenure. The last thing US wants to do is give breath of fresh air to likes of swadesi jagran manch)