The application of a reasonable law

In the widespread public discussion on the visa woes of our most infamous politician, there is a discernible tension in the minds of those t...

In the widespread public discussion on the visa woes of our most infamous politician, there is a discernible tension in the minds of those that oppose his politics. Although they consider Modi a disgrace to India, they struggle with two issues. First, was the visa denial fair? Second, was this an insult to India? This tension has made many shy away from applauding the visa denial. Some have even gone so far as to lambast the U.S. government for its treatment of Modi. All, of course, assert that they continue to despise Modi’s brand of politics.

The trouble is, their reactions play right into his hands. Modi is astute enough to know that thinking Indians- even those in his own party- will never like him. If he is to be the next LK Advani, he will need them to at least stop viewing him as a pariah. And the visa denial has presented him with a golden opportunity to emerge as a symbol of national solidarity, rather than one of national shame. It is therefore important to carefully consider the situation, before we choose to remain silent or join him in protesting the U.S. action.

Was Modi was treated fairly? Consider what happened. A group of Indian activists called the Coalition Against Genocide sought to draw the attention of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to the Gujarat government’s role in the 2002 riots. Due to their efforts, this role found mention in the Commission’s 2003 and 2004 reports. When news of Modi’s impending visit became public, the U.S. State Department, on the basis of the Commission’s reports, revoked Modi’s tourist and business visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212 (A) (2) (G), which prohibits the entry of an official responsible for ‘‘particularly severe violations of religious freedom.’’

Story continues below this ad

Note that the Act, understandably, does not require that such officials be convicted in their home country. We may not like the U.S. law. But it is not unjust. Countries have a sovereign right to grant or deny visas, and to enact laws that guide official judgment in doing so. It is totally reasonable for a law to keep out violators of religious freedom, and for government officials to base the discretionary judgement it allows them on the findings of official Commissions. This particular Commission, in fact, cited our own NHRC’s findings. Given that a reasonable law was fairly applied, we can hardly claim that Modi was treated unfairly. Some have pointed out that the U.S. admits officials from China and Saudi Arabia, countries with far worse records on religious freedom. The issue is not whether these officials visit the U.S. It is whether an official held directly responsible for the violation of religious freedom by a U.S. Government Commission was issued a tourist or business visa to visit the U.S. for private purposes by an embassy aware of the violation. No such instance has been brought to public attention.

Was this an insult to India? Remember, Narendra Modi was not representing the government or people of India. He was not even officially representing the government or people of Gujarat. He was planning a private visit to the U.S. to co-star with NBC anchor Chris Matthews at a convention of admiring Gujarati hotel owners in Florida. It is not the responsibility of the Indian state to plan the private vacations of its Chief Ministers. The revocation of their tourist visas is therefore no reflection on its standing. And, however much they might see themselves as symbols of India, it is most certainly not an insult to us as a nation. Many are understandably bothered that our Prime Minister’s request went unheeded. But let us turn the tables. Consider what would happen if the U.S. President were to call the Prime Minister, and request that India drop charges against former Union Carbide CEO Warren Anderson. Would anyone expect Dr. Singh to agree? If not, how can we claim to be insulted when the U.S. takes action against an Indian citizen in his private capacity?

Narendra Modi has deservedly been snubbed by the United States. However, he is neither a victim of injustice nor a symbol of national honour. To join in the confused chorus criticising the U.S. serves only to aid in his endeavour of exploiting the nationalist instincts of a deeply patriotic people. There are many good reasons to criticise the present U.S. government for injustice and unwarranted unilateralism. The denial of a visa to Narendra Modi is not one of them.

To remain silent is almost as bad. We need not applaud the U.S. But it is vitally important that we applaud the denial of the visa to Modi. For one, it represents the victory of a courageous group of Indians keeping alive our traditions of civic activism. Moreover, it is a way to stand with the victims of the Gujarat violence, in opposition to the man who has built a political career on their suffering. Most importantly, we need to understand that it is not our patriotic duty to back our government’s stand on every international issue. Particularly when the stand is in support of a man who has dishonoured our core national value of sarva dharma sambhava, the most patriotic thing we can do is to distance ourselves from it.

Story continues below this ad

Most of us understand that if India is to achieve international respect, we will have to ensure that people like Modi have no place in our public life.

The writer is a graduate student in the US