Advantage Modi
None of the players in India's grand political spectrum would be as happy as Narendra Modi today. Of all, the sole super-power in the world, the United States of America has put him in limelight now and a shrewd politician that Modi is, he has utilised the opportunity well by making his arch-rivals Congress run for him.
Narendra Modi's role or inaction in the infamous Gujarat riots of 2002 is very well known. Those were the days when the entire India was put to shame not just by the mindless rioting, but also by the inaction of the State Government headed by BJP's Narendra Modi to contain the violence that killed more than 2000. While his inaction to the events that unfolded is well known, the allegation that he had a role in instigating the violence in the first place is somewhat debatable and denied. Though a Chief Minister like Narendra Modi is not entirely new to an Indian state (Lalu, Mayavati, Shibu Shoren etc. are other shining diamonds that would make India proud on any day), what made the matters more embarrassing is the wide coverage of the riots by the International media that took the sheen away from the buoyant economy & the other good things that were happening in India at that time. As rightly acknowledged by L.K.Advani later on, it was a "blot" on Vajpayee Government's 6-year tenure. Whatever one thought of Modi, he displayed his mastery in politics by playing the 'communal man' card to his advantage by whipping up religious passions in the subsequent Gujarat State Assembly elections and returned to the seats of power with a thumping majority. Whether one likes it or not, it is a mandate given by the people and there is no disputing that.
Two and half years have passed since Narendra Modi reassumed power and still when anyone talks about Gujarat, the memories of 2002 always eclipses the vibrant business sense, the Gujaratis are known for.
With all such wonderful credentials against his name, Narendra Modi at the invitation of Asian American Hotel Owner's Association planned to go to United States early next month. It was at this juncture, United States of America, the self appointed guardian & champion of Human Rights rejected his application for a diplomatic visa on the grounds that his proposed visit failed to meet the conditions for such a permit. The consulate also revoked the tourist/business visa already granted to Modi under section 212 (A) (2) (G) of the Immigration And Nationality Act of United States. This is precisely what brings Narendra Modi to our discussion table today.
Granting or rejecting the visa is a sovereign right of any country. But this action of United States is totally uncalled for as it horribly exposes its double standards. The bitter truth for everyone is that Narendra Modi is holding a constitutional position in India, as he is the Honourable Chief Minister of Gujarat. Another fact is that, he has not been convicted or even charge-sheeted by any court in India. It is the media that has made all the allegations against him, however true they might be. As we saw already, the people of Gujarat gave Narendra Modi the mandate to rule after the riots, just like how George W Bush got the mandate to govern after a horrible first term at Oval office. It wouldn't have been a big deal had he been rejected the visa when he applies in his individual capacity. That Modi holds an important office in a country that US wants to develop relations with is what makes this a snub on India.
If United States applies the same standards, how could it host Pervez Musharaf, the beacon of democracy at White House & Camp David. If human rights is the main concern for Uncle Sam, shouldn't it close down its embassies & consultates in China & Saudi Arabia? Such double standards of United States are common knowledge and there is no point in debating these, but there are quite a bit of politics involved in India. How would it be if US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld or Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice were denied entry into any of the countries for the atrocities of the US troops in Iraq? For some reason, the Indian media hasn't highlighted one fact. When Narendra Modi visited Britain in 2003, United Kingdom did grant him a visa but quickly clarified that he is not under the invitation of the Queen. United States, quite expectedly isn't that polite.
Immediately after the news was out about the United States' refusal of visa, Narendra Modi quite expectedly launched a scathing attack on US and asked the right question - When Musharaf can visit, why can't I? His question is very much valid. BJP pressed the Centre to take this issue of 'insult to the nation' with the United States. While this issue has given Modi an opportunity of all time to go round the town and spread his theory of 'conspiracy by the West to hurt the Gujarati pride', the ruling Congress finds itself in a spot as it had to defend Narendra Modi by asking United States to reconsider the decision. It has rightly summoned the Deputy Head of Mission and registered its protest. For once, Congress has come out of narrow party politics and swiftly acted in the way one would expect a decent government to act. Definitely, the diplomatic skills of the UPA government would be put to test in this episode.
The heaven is not going to collapse if Modi could not visit America, but inadvertently Modi has been given a new lease of life by the US administration.
Narendra Modi's role or inaction in the infamous Gujarat riots of 2002 is very well known. Those were the days when the entire India was put to shame not just by the mindless rioting, but also by the inaction of the State Government headed by BJP's Narendra Modi to contain the violence that killed more than 2000. While his inaction to the events that unfolded is well known, the allegation that he had a role in instigating the violence in the first place is somewhat debatable and denied. Though a Chief Minister like Narendra Modi is not entirely new to an Indian state (Lalu, Mayavati, Shibu Shoren etc. are other shining diamonds that would make India proud on any day), what made the matters more embarrassing is the wide coverage of the riots by the International media that took the sheen away from the buoyant economy & the other good things that were happening in India at that time. As rightly acknowledged by L.K.Advani later on, it was a "blot" on Vajpayee Government's 6-year tenure. Whatever one thought of Modi, he displayed his mastery in politics by playing the 'communal man' card to his advantage by whipping up religious passions in the subsequent Gujarat State Assembly elections and returned to the seats of power with a thumping majority. Whether one likes it or not, it is a mandate given by the people and there is no disputing that.
Two and half years have passed since Narendra Modi reassumed power and still when anyone talks about Gujarat, the memories of 2002 always eclipses the vibrant business sense, the Gujaratis are known for.
With all such wonderful credentials against his name, Narendra Modi at the invitation of Asian American Hotel Owner's Association planned to go to United States early next month. It was at this juncture, United States of America, the self appointed guardian & champion of Human Rights rejected his application for a diplomatic visa on the grounds that his proposed visit failed to meet the conditions for such a permit. The consulate also revoked the tourist/business visa already granted to Modi under section 212 (A) (2) (G) of the Immigration And Nationality Act of United States. This is precisely what brings Narendra Modi to our discussion table today.
Granting or rejecting the visa is a sovereign right of any country. But this action of United States is totally uncalled for as it horribly exposes its double standards. The bitter truth for everyone is that Narendra Modi is holding a constitutional position in India, as he is the Honourable Chief Minister of Gujarat. Another fact is that, he has not been convicted or even charge-sheeted by any court in India. It is the media that has made all the allegations against him, however true they might be. As we saw already, the people of Gujarat gave Narendra Modi the mandate to rule after the riots, just like how George W Bush got the mandate to govern after a horrible first term at Oval office. It wouldn't have been a big deal had he been rejected the visa when he applies in his individual capacity. That Modi holds an important office in a country that US wants to develop relations with is what makes this a snub on India.
If United States applies the same standards, how could it host Pervez Musharaf, the beacon of democracy at White House & Camp David. If human rights is the main concern for Uncle Sam, shouldn't it close down its embassies & consultates in China & Saudi Arabia? Such double standards of United States are common knowledge and there is no point in debating these, but there are quite a bit of politics involved in India. How would it be if US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld or Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice were denied entry into any of the countries for the atrocities of the US troops in Iraq? For some reason, the Indian media hasn't highlighted one fact. When Narendra Modi visited Britain in 2003, United Kingdom did grant him a visa but quickly clarified that he is not under the invitation of the Queen. United States, quite expectedly isn't that polite.
Immediately after the news was out about the United States' refusal of visa, Narendra Modi quite expectedly launched a scathing attack on US and asked the right question - When Musharaf can visit, why can't I? His question is very much valid. BJP pressed the Centre to take this issue of 'insult to the nation' with the United States. While this issue has given Modi an opportunity of all time to go round the town and spread his theory of 'conspiracy by the West to hurt the Gujarati pride', the ruling Congress finds itself in a spot as it had to defend Narendra Modi by asking United States to reconsider the decision. It has rightly summoned the Deputy Head of Mission and registered its protest. For once, Congress has come out of narrow party politics and swiftly acted in the way one would expect a decent government to act. Definitely, the diplomatic skills of the UPA government would be put to test in this episode.
The heaven is not going to collapse if Modi could not visit America, but inadvertently Modi has been given a new lease of life by the US administration.
posted by Indian Voter at 10:16:00 PM
9 Comments:
double standards and US, they simply get along well :)
yup...well said...but unfortunately, we are no better at it ourselves...
Ramesh
Saranyan, there is no double standard. US has as many standards as the number of people/countries.
And in what way is India different? We enthusiastically supported the monarch n Nepal, backed off of Myanmar, messing up things with respect to Tibet, anything Pak does is evil, friendly with Iran, Iraq and Cuba and Russia an all-weather friend. Howz Castro different from Musharraf? Mebbe he got elected but Pervez had a referendum too.
Policies dont neccesarily follow principles. Thats true with India as much as it is true with US - as long as there is something beneficial. As for this issue, I dont see a reason for the US to have done this. But basing the visa denial on the NHRC report is the most dumbest thing anyone can do. The most respected of all human rights orgzns, Amnesty blames Bush for all that is evil.
Jagan - without going into the validity of the decision - the basis of that decision is blatantly stupid!
>> He's one of among the unpopular CM's.
Jagan:: Modi's popularity or otherwise depends on one's perception. For you, he is one of the unpopular CM's. Try asking that to a Bajrang Dal volunteer.
In my view, even George Bush is very unpopular.
Citing the NHRC report is the biggest joke of all. As Harish says, Amnesty blames Bush for everything. What are they gonna do abt it?
I think this issue deserves this kinda media attention. I am not a Modi supporter. But I feel that a subjective decision made on a constitutional authority in India must be condemned.
I am so very happy that the UPA government has taken it in the right way.
I agree with Jaganlee that this is blown way out of proportion by media. What Indian Government does now by protesting is trying to keep the status quo fearing the diplomatic principle of what you give away is something difficult to take back. As once a precedence is set there could be more in store. So should try to avoid it. Normal diplomatic reply would have been to do the same to the other country on the first opportunity available. But with US and with the want of an American with whom India could pick an objection to, I do not think Indian Government would go that route!
Now why do we care about this so much anyways. I mean us the public. Forget about the government. They need to worry about keeping the diplomatic status quo. I don't think any of us would deny the fact that atleast a thousand died in those riots. Has any of us heard about anyone brought to justice for those crimes? And here is someone who was in governance then and in governance even after the riots. It will be interesting to see how many were convicted in Modi's Gujarat. What US did is what our media and people should have done so long before. It is a pity our media and others are so up in arms for people like Modi. Modi's comparison with Musharaff is laughable. Musharaff is a head of state. Though not democratically elected, he is someone without much of a blot regarding human rights. Then after all what is our obsession with Pakistan. Isn't that our double standards that we very conveniently ignore Myanmar and Nepal were people are brutally suppressed. Modi was not going on a diplomatic mission/invitation. So the question about diplomatic visa is anyways out of question just as UK was wise to do so before. Now about tourist visa. He is equal to anyone else in India and it is the host country who can decide whether to admit or not. Alas, UK had done this before US!
As someone pointed out this is not an insult to India, it is just an insult to Modi. The insult to India is that we still fight for undeserved people like Modi for whatever reason.
Talking of double standards, we heard in the previous post that it may be good to break fundamental rules to bring corrupt practices to an end. Then why not a not-so-fundamental choice by another country to snub someone to whom we refuse to do so.
On a lighter note, as Modi puts this as an insult to India, why doesn't request all those NRIs who support Modi and contribute handsomely to BJP, to leave US and come back home? ;)
I do not think this was an insult to anyone. If anything it is a signal from the US - I dont think that the US wanted to insult Modi. What do they really get from that. Mebbe Condi (I really think the decision would have been made at her level rather than a jr. secy in the embassy.) wanted to appease muslims.. Its a stretch, but given the noise it has created - mebbe they were making a correct decision!
I think the US did the right thing. Will you invite a hard core criminal, who despite being a relative of your best friend, into your house? US has every right to allow and deny anyone, just like we have every right to allow or disallow people into our own houses
I feel a blanket ban should be issued upon people who exploit and make a public outcry when some sort of punishment is awarded..
Where was the same person hibernating when mass killings were happening
Now without shame he is crying he is being denied #isa....
I feel a blanket ban should be issued upon people who exploit and make a public outcry when some sort of punishment is awarded..
Where was the same person hibernating when mass killings were happening
Now without shame he is crying he is being denied #isa....
Post a Comment
<< Home