The aftermath of any event is always a good place to start adjudicating on an issue and event – simply because it gives one the advantage of hindsight. The denial of a visa to Narendra Modi, an elected head of state in democratic India, would obviously result in dividing public opinion on the man and the issue itself. But before one considers the monikers of ‘victim’ or ‘villain’ for Modi one must first read the facts in a clear and objective light.
The whole incident emerged when activists representing the ‘Coalition against Genocide’ drew the attention of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom to the purported role of the Gujarat government in the 2002 riots. I specifically use the word ‘purported’ for despite the statements and public perceptions, neither Narendra Modi nor the state Government apparatus have ever been indicted on charges specific to the Godhra riot. Nonetheless the efforts by the Coalition yielded results with the role of the Gujarat government finding mention in the Commission’s reports for two years running – in 2003 and 2004. Ironically the Commission cited the findings of our very own National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) report on the Godhra riots to reach its conclusion on Modi and the Gujarat government. Thus upon intimation of Modi’s impending visit to the United States and on the basis of the Commission’s report, the US State Department revoked Modi’s business and tourist visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212 (A) (2) (G) which prohibits the entry of a person responsible for ‘particularly severe violations of religious freedom’.
With the pronouncement of the decision taken by the United States, statements of protest came from both the Centre and the State government and therein the public question of whether Narendra Modi is in fact the victim or the villain in these proceedings? One must consider the fact that the United States would not have taken this extreme step without informing the Government of India prior to the public announcement of their decision. That said it could also be assumed that the Government of India would have informed the Gujarat Chief Minister of the impending judgment on his visa application. The question that one must consider now is why Narendra Modi actually went ahead with the application after all in the first place? Knowing that his application would be rejected can’t it truly be said that Modi in fact went ahead with his plans merely to accrue political mileage out of the whole episode?
A cursory glance at newspaper headlines and the extent of media coverage this issue received reveals the scope of the mileage that Modi has indeed been able to derive out of this whole exercise. For one it clearly shows that besides being a divisive figure in national politics, he can still carry the media with him. The denial of the visa gave Modi the perfect opportunity to campaign and spell out his stand sans the Godhra backdrop, and this time, he was able to successfully portray himself as the victim rather than the villain. He even went out on a limb to woo the Muslim constituents of Gujarat by claiming that he ‘not against Islam but against Jihad’.
The Centre’s response to the whole episode was to wholly back Modi while expressing regret at the decision of the United States. I don’t think that there could have been any other way for the Government of India to react on this issue. If the GoI had distanced itself from the visa issue then Modi would have been inadvertently accorded more political mileage as he could have then claimed that New Delhi had let petty party politics affect the nation’s image. However supporting him may not exactly have been the right way either. The latest public relations strategy by the Gujarat government is in the form of a 47 - page booklet entitled ‘US refusal of visa to Shri Narendra Modi: India stands united’. A not so subtle indication of the stand that the Central government took on the issue came in the form of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s photograph next to Modi himself on the cover of the booklet.
This brings me back to my first point. Why did the United States feel impelled to refuse and revoke Narendra Modi’s visa? Had he gone to the United States, Narendra Modi would have been there in his own personal capacity, and not as the elected head of an Indian state. He was therefore neither representing Indians nor his electoral constituents in the state of Gujarat. Moreover why did the United States revoke Modi’s visa citing ‘violations of religious freedom’ especially since there is no registered case against him in any of the courts, charge sheeting him in connection with the Godhra riots. Public perceptions and subjective opinions of Modi apart, the enforcement agencies have not been able to prove his complicity in the Godhra riots in a comprehensive fashion. The decision by the United States becomes even more odd as they did not have any qualms in according L K Advani, a person who has cases pending against him in connection with the Ayodhya dispute and Babri Masjid demolition case, a reception normally reserved for visiting heads of state, when he last went to the United States in June of 2003.
All said and done it is obvious that there is more to what meets the eye in this whole episode. But one thing that can be said conclusively is that Narendra Modi has emerged with a lot more political mileage and gain, with the ensuing media circus, than he could have anticipated.
The whole incident emerged when activists representing the ‘Coalition against Genocide’ drew the attention of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom to the purported role of the Gujarat government in the 2002 riots. I specifically use the word ‘purported’ for despite the statements and public perceptions, neither Narendra Modi nor the state Government apparatus have ever been indicted on charges specific to the Godhra riot. Nonetheless the efforts by the Coalition yielded results with the role of the Gujarat government finding mention in the Commission’s reports for two years running – in 2003 and 2004. Ironically the Commission cited the findings of our very own National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) report on the Godhra riots to reach its conclusion on Modi and the Gujarat government. Thus upon intimation of Modi’s impending visit to the United States and on the basis of the Commission’s report, the US State Department revoked Modi’s business and tourist visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212 (A) (2) (G) which prohibits the entry of a person responsible for ‘particularly severe violations of religious freedom’.
With the pronouncement of the decision taken by the United States, statements of protest came from both the Centre and the State government and therein the public question of whether Narendra Modi is in fact the victim or the villain in these proceedings? One must consider the fact that the United States would not have taken this extreme step without informing the Government of India prior to the public announcement of their decision. That said it could also be assumed that the Government of India would have informed the Gujarat Chief Minister of the impending judgment on his visa application. The question that one must consider now is why Narendra Modi actually went ahead with the application after all in the first place? Knowing that his application would be rejected can’t it truly be said that Modi in fact went ahead with his plans merely to accrue political mileage out of the whole episode?
A cursory glance at newspaper headlines and the extent of media coverage this issue received reveals the scope of the mileage that Modi has indeed been able to derive out of this whole exercise. For one it clearly shows that besides being a divisive figure in national politics, he can still carry the media with him. The denial of the visa gave Modi the perfect opportunity to campaign and spell out his stand sans the Godhra backdrop, and this time, he was able to successfully portray himself as the victim rather than the villain. He even went out on a limb to woo the Muslim constituents of Gujarat by claiming that he ‘not against Islam but against Jihad’.
The Centre’s response to the whole episode was to wholly back Modi while expressing regret at the decision of the United States. I don’t think that there could have been any other way for the Government of India to react on this issue. If the GoI had distanced itself from the visa issue then Modi would have been inadvertently accorded more political mileage as he could have then claimed that New Delhi had let petty party politics affect the nation’s image. However supporting him may not exactly have been the right way either. The latest public relations strategy by the Gujarat government is in the form of a 47 - page booklet entitled ‘US refusal of visa to Shri Narendra Modi: India stands united’. A not so subtle indication of the stand that the Central government took on the issue came in the form of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s photograph next to Modi himself on the cover of the booklet.
This brings me back to my first point. Why did the United States feel impelled to refuse and revoke Narendra Modi’s visa? Had he gone to the United States, Narendra Modi would have been there in his own personal capacity, and not as the elected head of an Indian state. He was therefore neither representing Indians nor his electoral constituents in the state of Gujarat. Moreover why did the United States revoke Modi’s visa citing ‘violations of religious freedom’ especially since there is no registered case against him in any of the courts, charge sheeting him in connection with the Godhra riots. Public perceptions and subjective opinions of Modi apart, the enforcement agencies have not been able to prove his complicity in the Godhra riots in a comprehensive fashion. The decision by the United States becomes even more odd as they did not have any qualms in according L K Advani, a person who has cases pending against him in connection with the Ayodhya dispute and Babri Masjid demolition case, a reception normally reserved for visiting heads of state, when he last went to the United States in June of 2003.
All said and done it is obvious that there is more to what meets the eye in this whole episode. But one thing that can be said conclusively is that Narendra Modi has emerged with a lot more political mileage and gain, with the ensuing media circus, than he could have anticipated.
No comments:
Post a Comment