For the record, I'd like to state that I am a first generation Indian American (if I may even call myself that after 2 years here...do you need a greencard to qualify?) and in my group of FOB friends, barring a small but vocal minority EVERYONE thinks modi is an A*hole of the first order.

So while previous generations of 1st generation IAs might have been complacent towards politics and freedom of religion, the new generation isn't.

This is great news. People have to know that they are being watched by the world and their actions will always be noticed and acted upon.

God Bless the USA

From Rediff via Sulekha

Did this letter stop Modi?

March 18, 2005

A spokesman of the US embassy in New Delhi said Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has been denied a diplomatic visa and his tourist/business visa already granted had been revoked as per the US Immigration and Nationality Act.

Following is the text of a letter United States Congressman from Pennsylvania Joe Pitts and 21 other US Congressmen sent Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice requesting that Modi be denied permission to enter the US 'due to numerous reports of his involvement in horrific human rights violations in India.'

Published verbatim.

March 7, 2005

The Honorable Dr Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
US Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Rice:

We are writing to raise our deep concern about the upcoming visit of Mr Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat, India. As you may know, Mr Modi has been invited to be the chief guest at the annual conference of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association to be held in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida from March 24-26, 2005. We respectfully request that the US government deny Mr Modi entry to the United States due to numerous reports of his involvement in horrific human rights violations in India.

As you may know, Mr Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat during the 2002 riots in which over 2,000 Indian Muslims and non-Hindus lost their lives. Since that time, reports suggest that over 100,000 people remain displaced and are unable to return to their homes or communities. Numerous inquiries by Indian officials and non-government organisations have determined that the state government in Gujarat, led by Chief Minister Modi, provided leadership and material support for the rape and murder of over 2,000 people, including women and young children, and the destruction of homes, businesses and resources primarily belonging to Indian Muslims. Mr Modi made public statements and directed official actions seemingly calculated at justifying his orders to increase attacks on and kill religious minorities while ordering the police not to interfere.

After an extensive investigation of the violence in Gujarat, Human Rights Watch stated that the "attacks against Muslims (and other religious minorities) in Gujarat have been actively supported by state (BJP) government officials and by the police."

In addition, The Citizens Tribunal in India, led by retired Supreme Court Justice V R Krishna Iyer, concluded that the state government of Gujarat under the leadership of Chief Minister Narendra Modi was responsible for the violence perpetrated against religious minorities in Gujarat in 2002. Furthermore, the US Department of State reported that in "Gujarat, there continued to be credible evidence of prejudice in favor of Hindus and an unwritten policy of impunity against the perpetrators of the 2002 religious violence."

Chief Minister Narendra Modi and his government have obstructed attempts to bring the perpetrators of the 2002 violence to justice. Mr Modi and his administration closed the files on over 2,000 police cases where the non-Hindu victims filed reports of rapes, killings and destruction of their property. The Gujarat state administration claimed there was no evidence to prosecute those cases. However, most of the people named in cases against the police are associated with Mr Modi's political party.

In a recent unprecedented order, the Supreme Court of India ordered the reopening of all those cases to be tried in a neighbouring state by a special bench of judges. The Supreme Court of India called Mr Modi a "modern day Nero" and warned him not to meddle with the proceeding of the trials.

Furthermore, the US State Department has discussed in one of its reports the role of Chief Minister Narendra Modi and his government in promoting attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of Nazism through his government's support of school textbooks in which Nazism is condoned.

For example, in a high school social studies textbook, the "charismatic personality" of "Hitler the Supremo" and the "achievements" of Nazism are described at length. The textbook does not even acknowledge Nazi extermination policies or concentration camps except for a passing reference to "a policy of opposition towards the Jewish people and [advocacy for] the supremacy of the German race."

In addition to his reported culpability in the Gujarat riots and his promotion of racist ideology, there are widespread reports of Mr Modi's leadership of the harassment of Christian religious and educational organizations over a number of years. Further, on a daily basis Chief Minister Modi and his government actively harass Christian leaders and Christian religious organizations who are involved in the relief and rehabilitation work of the victims of violence by extremist Hindus.

Even further, Mr Modi ordered a census, ruled illegal by the Gujarat High Court, of the Christian community -- the same action he took prior to the orchestrated attacks on Muslims in 2002. Even Indian Hindus who oppose Modi's violent tactics against the religious minorities are harassed and intimidated by state authorities. And, under his leadership, the state of Gujarat passed an anti-conversion law in strong violation of the Indian Constitution and international human rights norms to which India is a party.

We are deeply concerned that a visit to the United States by Chief Minister Modi is in violation of the International Religious Freedom Act and will provide tacit approval of his reprehensible statements, policies and actions that violate the core of the fundamental human rights upon which our nation is founded. We respectfully request your leadership in publicly condemning his actions and policies by denying Chief Minister Narendra Modi the right to enter our country.

Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Congressman Joe Pitts

Now that truly is a b*tchslap.

I am glad the US State Department did the right thing.
Shout out to all Indian Americans and others who worked very hard to bring this about.
I think that Modi's fate was sealed by his support for the Nazis more than anything else.

Ajju,
You stated "barring a small but vocal minority EVERYONE thinks modi is an A*hole of the first order"
Hmmm I just surfed some Indian websites ( not Indian American) and most of the people posting comments are pretty pissed about Modi being denied a visa. I do understand that this is not a scientific survey of what people are thinking, but it sure is a good indication.

Al Mujahid

Take a tour around a random sample of Muslim websites and you would get the impression that every Muslim in the world is a frothing at the mouth anti-semitic psycho. Do the same about Sikhs and see the Khalistani grubs mangling words and truth and you can say the same thing. Try it.

For all of you who thinks it is Modi who has been b*tch slapped think again. Modi has not been convicted of any legal wrong doing by the indian constitution, so what the US has done is basically a slap to india and an insult to its constitution. For the record I think Modi is an asshole too, but that's besides the point, this sets a bad precedent, the US is playing into another country's internal politics and that is not good. For that matter what right do the leaders of bangladesh or pakistan have to visit the US then?? These are two countries that have virtually wiped all of their minorities out. As we speak Pakistan is indulging in a brutal suppression of their baloch minorities. Just my opinion on the hypocrisy being shown

I completely agree with Ajju. The group of academics who wrote in to the state department were nearly all first generation Indians. My experience with first generation Indians in academia is that they are almost exclusively opposed to according Modi anything other than jail time.

Secular leftism is alive and well in India and among Indians in the US.

Punjabi Boy,
Whats your point ?
That people who post online comments do not represent their communities ?
No is one is asserting that they do.

I watched Modi's press conference live on TV. He looked dull, and was talking about the US double standards -- "the US allows entry of many genociders, why single out me?" seemed to be the key point! He also said that the US Govt was under pressure from "terrorist sponsored" groups to deny him entry.

Al Mujahid

Dont act like sophist. You know what my point was.

While I applaud the State Department for denying Modi his visa, I only wish the Indian government had the same backbone and not invite Musharaff to India. Is cricket so important that several hundred dead Indian soldiers from Kargil and countless victims of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism are easily forgotten?

KXB,

your logic is ridiculous. The Indian-Pakistan peace process should not be held hostage to people with little brusied egos.

Its serious business and encompasses the dreams of billions of people. Peace in South Asia right now is not in the hands of ijiots like you, and thats why its going somewhere.

Take the petty little tit for tat with no releavence to anything else, and CRY TO MOMMY. Do not ruin the future of billions of other people who have other things to worry about then if you feel put down.

sincerely.

BURN modi BURN! A-holes like these don't deserve to be in the government. To bad they get elected because of the intense corruption in Indian politics.

Personally I feel Modi and the likes do not deserve any position in Government or any public place. Saying that I also think Musharraf also does not deserve to be invited to India. Its like giving milk to snake. All you get out of it is venom. Just pull the fangs of this ugly snake out.

Good. I'm glad his visa was denied.

Yes, hypocrisy abounds but doing the right thing is more important than mere consistency. We let Gerry Adams into the country and Musharraf, but that doesn't mean we should let Modi come in.

Raju, may I respectfully say that you are being a bit hard on KXB? The goverment of Pakistan (or at least elements of the military, which on many occasions amounts to the same thing) is responsible for arming and training fighters who cross the LOC and are responsible for the death of innocents. I don't think the death of innocents amounts to 'bruised little egos.' I understand that in order for diplomacy to succeed, India has to deal with people that have blood on their hands: I just don't see why it is wrong to point out that they, er, have said blood on their hands.

Quote "
Is cricket so important that several hundred dead Indian soldiers from Kargil and countless victims of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism are easily forgotten? "

- How about the fact that Musharraf was the architect of the Kargil war which was an undeclared military action against a sovereign nation facilitated by Pak army under the leadership of Musharraf.
That makes Musharraf a war criminal. He gets invited to camp David and Modi denied a visa...
Well I guess, as one American president said about the Nicaraguan dictator ... "He is an SOB but he is our SOB" I guess that preety much sums up the US foreign policy. (and get off the f*ing moral high horse)

I should add a hindi quote "Sau chuhe mar ke Billi chali haj ko"

Its one thing to be saddened by loss of life but its another to be using the deaths of people as pawns. how in the world does Kargil fit into this news item?

Raju,

Peace process held hostage to bruised egos? Is this the impression you got when talking to thousand of Pandit families living in squalor in Jammu refugee camps? Or the widow of the young man stabbed to death on the Indian Airlines flight that was hijacked?

The biggest mistake you make is confusing a cricket match with a peace process. See if you can follow me here - sports have never settled differences between countries. Did Nazi Germany roll over and die when Jesse Owens showed them that "Aryan Supermen" were no match for him? Did the US beating the USSR in Olympic hockey in 1980 make the Soviets open their eyes to their corrupt system?

So, you'll have to forgive me if I believe it highly unlikely that Musharaff will attend the match and think, "Gosh, looks at those cricket stars. Makes me want to go back to Pakistan, and start arresting all those terrorist chiefs that I have not bothered to arrest for six years."

KXB your choice of examples shows your bias. There is a lot of human suffering in South Asia and there are more than a few examples.

Anything that brings South Asia closer and not further away from a legitimate peace process is a good idea.

And yeah, you know what, those cricket matches probably are doing good, because they've allowed people from both countries to visit each other.

MD if he was talking about Kargil for the sake of Kargil, or the people who died there, I'd never call it a case of bruised egos

Jorg Haider had been denied a visa earlier. Now, Narendra and Jorg can sit down and reminisce fondly of nazi greatness and genocide glory.

KXB,
The problem with Musharraf is not what we did in Kargil. The problem is what he may or may not be doing now.
'Blood on hands' gets you nowhere. Ariel Sharon is now making peace with PLO. Tony Blair made peace with the IRA. Soon USA will be dealing with Hizbullah.
I however do agree with you, that if Musharraf is continuing to support the terrorists in Kashmir, one could argue that watching a cricket game is not going to solve anything.

I'm especially proud to be an American today.

Another thing I wanted to point out. A few people, although excited about what happened today, were wondering why it hadn't happened SOONER. Keep in mind that the Sec. of State Rice was just in India. Even if she had gotten the request from the two congressman (because congressmen are the only people that matter) to deny Modi's Visa it would not have been in her interests to do so while she was discussing other matters of state. It would have distracted from her agenda in the Indian Press. It's all about timing.

Here is another ironic twist I'd like to point out from this article:

Terming the US Government’s decision to deny him visa an insult to the world’s largest democracy and its sovereignty, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Friday declared that the grounds for denial are baseless.

He also appealed to the Prime Minister to rise over political equations and take up the issue as a matter of national concern.

“I am writing to the Prime Minister regarding this,” he told reporters, at a press conference here. “If the Union Government ignores this issue, it will do great harm to India’s interests.”

The problem with that is that the Prime Minister's own daughter works for the ACLU in the U.S. I'd love to sit in on that father/daughter chat. :)

Its good to watch them squirm.

I think USA denying visa to modi and the way they have done it is wrong.check out my response here
http://jackofall.blogspot.com/2005/03/b-slapping-modi.html

KXB,
your logic is indeed ridiculous.how come you are asking the indian govt to deny the visa for musharaff and don't say anything about the US double standard on granting visa for musharaff and not for modi.

I'm especially proud to be an American today.

Ugh. I was just trying to stay out of the fray for once, but you drew me in, Manish.

I already wrote about how I feel conflicted about this, but to sum up: I did feel that, although that this was a slap in the face to Modi as well as to Indians in general, particularly given the human rights record of the United State (how many faces complicit in slavery or genocide do we have on our money?). I'm not going to say this wasn't a good thing, but I'm also not particularly proud to be an American as a result.

I'm not going to say this wasn't a good thing, but I'm also not particularly proud to be an American as a result.

By the way, the congressman's complaint that Modi is preventing conversion to Christianity is hilarious-- it's a side issue relative to the scale of the murderous riots, and he was playing to the evangelicals in the administration.

This was not a slap to India. As the heading of this post says, it was a slap to Modi as an individual. A well-deserved one.

But keep in mind what this means for Indian politics. Modi is damaged goods, internationally speaking. So while he may still have some pull within Gujarat, his value on a larger political stage in India is diminished.

In the case of Musharaff being invited to the U.S., that is indeed a bitter pill to swallow. I can understanding having to invite him, but calling him a voice for moderation in the Muslim world is a bit much.

Now, how does that square with my earlier post about Musharaff? Well, if he wants to come to negotiate Kashmir, that's one thing - then you have to talk to him. But India did not have to invite him to watch cricket.

I think it was a slap to India as well, for not taking out their own garbage, as Manish says.

The difference between Modi and Musharraf is that Musharraf represents a country that India would like to have peace with. At some point, some government is going to have to overlook past mistakes of people on the other side (as also someone is Pakistan is going to have to put aside India's mistakes) and come to the table to discuss stuff.

Also understand that emotions are big in diplomacy. In the end inviting Musharraf (and Pakistani citizens) to the match helps improve our image on the other side of the border and strengthen friendship, in some form. This friendship is necessary because people on both sides of the border will have to digest some not so delicious compromises if long term peace is to be achieved.

" complaint that Modi is preventing conversion to Christianity is hilarious-- it's a side issue relative to the scale of the murderous riots, and he was playing to the evangelicals in the administration."

I dont think it is hillarious. I think it is the dangerous reality of American elected leaders doing proxy religious conquest of other people thru' their evangelical connections.
See the truth comes out, this American congressman couldnt care less if poor hardworking and innocent muslims in Ahmedabad got killed. All he cares for is that evangelical conquest. Indians (or atleast those who wish to lobby for India) should be able to see thru' their game.

Good that Modi has been brought to light. Because of him the whole 'quam' (of Hindutva) is being demonized.

L.K. Advani and Vajpayee had to take drastic steps to keep Modi under check. Modi does not represent Hindutva - Vajpayee does.

It takes no nuance to take a stand against an accomplice to mass murder.

Agreed. That's why I did, in those simple terms. If you want to put it even more bluntly, you could accurately call it mass murder on the basis of religion...which some might call genocide.

But to stick to mass murder for now, by the same principle, we should probably stop paying federal taxes to the U.S. government and encourage the Indian government to deny visas to Dick Cheney, who was Reagan's Secretary of Defense while he was arming "dictators of the right" and Donald Rumsfeld, who was Reagan's envoy to Iraq and helped get Saddam Hussein armed.

It's not Dubya I'm pleased with here, it's the State Dep't.

You think George Bush doesn't get consulted when a high level official from a strategic competitor of the Untied States has his visa revoked? Either way, Condoleeza Rice is nothing to write home about either.

Anyway, that's not the point; the point is something along the lines of what you said: the censure should be coming from India, not the U.S.. By which I would mean the U.S. government, and I assume you did too.

I do have trouble employing moral clarity, which, to your credit, you don't seem to. However, I think a little nuance here helps. Like most geoplitical and social change affairs, is a lot more convuluted in the long term than it appears on the surface. My aim in protesting Modi was not just accountability for Modi, but how to move forward to reduce the power of and defanaticize Hindu politics in India. Otherwise, the other Modis will have even more power to conduct more Gujarats. Stoking anti-Americanism that the BJP and other Sangh groups can politically benefit from does nothing to help that cause.

how to move forward to reduce the power of and defanaticize Hindu politics in India

You are assuming the campaigners (CAG) dont share this goal. They do, and thats why such a strong lobby.

Evangelism sucks. I don't like the way it's done in a lot of tribal areas in India in a quid-pro-quo fashion. But the fact is that if the government doesnt take care of the basic amenities of those tribals, its a free market out there. Someone will. And an abstract thing like religion is often a small price to pay for food, schools and hospitals for most of these people.

First disclosure - I am NO Modi fan. And I am not from Gujarat either.

But I think that the US has crossed the line here. Although it is a country's discretionary right to deny a visa; this particular act is in a way an insult to the Indian constitution and judicial system. And therfore I predict that the reprecussions of this will be far and beyond.

Also, some of you have made comments about this being an end to Modi's political career. Not to disappoint you, but Indian politics doesn't exactly work that way !

The other issue here that everyone seems to be overlooking is the predicament of the AAHOA. Indian Americans own an obscenely disproportionate number of hotels in this country in relation to the percentage of our population. There is SO MUCH untapped political muscle (or “capital”) there that was completely wasted on misguided efforts to bring over Modi. Now the AAHOA have been made to looks like fools.

Well, this is one of those times when it's pretty clear that just because they're Indian, that doesn't mean they're okay. But hey--if someone wants to go organize (wealthy?) Gujarati hotel owners, more power to you.

In any case, what I heard is that this Modi controversy, plus some other preexisting $hit, has gotten the AAHOA leadership in trouble and we soon may have a less-fanatical hotel owners association to look forward to :)

VM,
This is what they mean when they say "American style democracy". God save Iraq from this "freedom and democracy"

The courts may not have indicted him, but he's the same person who quoted Newton's third law - 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' to justify the attack on Muslims. As Chief Minister it was his duty to protect all the citizens, irrespective of his personal prejudices. Not only did he fail his duty, he condoned criminal acts while in power, and that IMHO is the real slap to our constitution.

But the fact is that if the government doesnt take care of the basic amenities of those tribals, its a free market out there.

To do that the Indian Govt. needs Money. Look at the following article from Times Of India. I dont have a link but I did saved the text.

-----------------------
Author: Inder Sawhney

Publication: The Times of India

Date: August 16, 1999

Christian missionaries and allied groups continue to be largest recipients of foreign funds. They received Rs 15.88 crore (75.69 per cent of the total foreign funds) in April-June this year compared with Rs 11.41 crore during the corresponding period last year and Rs 12.67 crore in the first quarter.

A study of the receipt of foreign funds by religious/ non-political organizations and other groups in April-June, based on Intelligence reports gathered by the Home ministry, indicates a sharp increase to Rs 20.98 crore compared with Rs 14.02 crore during the corresponding period in 1998.

The US with donations of Rs 4.10 crore (as against Rs 2.26 crore during the same period in 1998) displaced Germany as the leading donor. In the first quarter of 1999 also, the US was the highest donor with Rs 3.31 crore.

In the second quarter of this year, Kerala received the largest amount (Rs 3.09 crore) followed by Himachal Pradesh (Rs 2.87 crore), West Bengal (Rs 2.73 crore) Maharashtra (Rs 1.69 crore), Andhra Pradesh Rs 1.3 crore and Karnataka Rs 1.2 crore. Rajasthan was the lowest, accounting for a mere Rs 4,000.

Non-political organizations were the other major recipients of foreign funds (Rs 1.38 crore) followed by Muslim organizations which got Rs 64.13 lakh compared with Rs 23.06 lakh received by them in the second quarter of 1998.

According to the study, there was a fall in the receipt of funds by non-denominational organizations, including “pseudo-religious” bodies. They received Rs 22.99 lakh in the second quarter of this year against Rs 70.99 lakh in the corresponding period last year.

--------------------------

Wonder why, even with so much funding, the evangelicals have not been able to covert a lot of Hindus and Muslims to Christianity?

an abstract thing like religion is often a small price to pay for food, schools and hospitals for most of these people.

Questions of culture, individual autonomy aside, why should people have to subject themselves to religious proseletyzation to eat? How about just making sure the government has enough money to provide for the peeps, rather than relying on the invisible hand in the form of missionaries (Hindu and Christian alike).

rather than relying on the invisible hand in the form of missionaries (Hindu and Christian alike)

Dude... looks like you are ABCD. There are no Hindu Missionaries. Tribals living in India are Hindus. Trying to protect them from being converted to Christianity is not proselytizying.

By denying Modi a visa, I dont feel as if the US have overstepped their boundaries for once. Its not as if the US is implementing economic sanctions towards India until Modi is arrested (now that would be overstepping boundaries).His complacency towards the riots and the non-Hindu victims is reprehensible. And if it is a slap in the face of India- then good. Maybe India needs a wake up call in this matter. I am tired of overhyped patriotism and over sensitivity towards protecting our "honor" constantly overshadowing issues of human right violations.

Two things

1) I find the concept of 'Protecting people from religion X' to be slightly funny. But in any case, its true that historically Hinduism has not been an a missionary religion.

Saurav,I was just pointing out things as they are. Of course having food to eat and what religion to follow should be disjoint things. "Making sure government has enough money" is not a small problem, beleive it or not - we have been trying to solve that one since there have been governments.

Sachin, Saurav was trying to be fair. And please stop using ABCD as a derogatory term - you will be surprised to find that there are american born indians who know far more about India than you. Stop generalizing.

2) I totally see the U.S. government's hypocrisy in doing this - considering that they themselves support regimes like Saudi Arabia. But let's take a look at their options

a) Stop supporting countries like Saudi AND not allowing Modi

b) Continuing to support Saudi and disallowing Modi

c) Continuing to support Saudi and allowing Modi

Of course a) is the ideal but surely you can see that b is better than c. Everyone should be perfect, but if they waited till they were before pointing out other people's mistakes - we would never be able to punish anyone's mistakes.

Now someone else, maybe the Indian government should make the US see its hypocrisy by denying a Visa to Rumsfeld for supporting Iraq. I wish that could happen.

Dude... looks like you are ABCD. There are no Hindu Missionaries. Tribals living in India are Hindus. Trying to protect them from being converted to Christianity is not proselytizying.

are you kidding me? i hope that was a tongue in cheek comment.

if you really do believe that, read this. If they were doing that overseas, imagine what the VHP was doing in India. I agree that protection from proselytization is a good thing, but there are certainly Hindu missionaries. Whenever it is possible to assimilate individuals to increase an organization's power and control, there will always be people pushing that assimilation.

absolut: I dont think preoselytization is a good thing but the article says "Their missionary work amongst overseas Hindus will last at least a decade."

and

"committed to preserving Hinduism in its purest and most traditional form, said the priests would try and dilute the influence of Christianity on expatriate Hindus."

By definition, missionary work is when you convert people of other religions to your religion. Convincing Hindus to stay Hindus is not really proselytizing.

Chapati Mystery has a very interesting take on this as usual. Sepoy says whatever Modi did, stopping him from coming to the US is censorship - just like denying a visa to href="http://www.time.com/time/innovators/spirituality/profile_ramadan.html">Tariq Ramadan was. This argument makes me ambivalent on the issue. Go read the post.

Dude... looks like you are ABCD.

Dude, thank you. I reclaim!

Someone else already pointed out Hindutva missionary activities, so I won't bother. While I appreciate someone defending me, I wasn't just trying to be fair; my understanding (obviously not on the ground being in New York) is that "tribal education" is most frequently tied up with proselytzation.

In any case, the argument I was making is being misinterpreted. I'm glad that Modi is not speaking at Madison Square Garden. I've been helping to organize some of the work around this with Campaign Against Genocide. My main point is that the last part of how Modi was shunned (U.S. government intervention), is problematic for both Indian and Amrikan politics. I don't like state power--particularly American state power. Also, moral criteria has a long and fu#@ed up history in american immigration law. Look into it.

By definition, missionary work is when you convert people of other religions to your religion. Convincing Hindus to stay Hindus is not really proselytizing.

EXACTLY.... YOU HIT IT RIGHT IN THE SPOT!!

People who can't make this distinction compare American right with Hindu Right (if you will), including the media (they just want brewing booze...)
----------------
About what happened in Gujarat was wrong, on the basis that "Modi could have done more". But thats how govts. in India work. A usual Joe does not execpt that Govt. would come and help them out. Be it riots or natural calamity. During gujarat earthquake, govt. relief arrived later than international relief workers..!

By definition, missionary work is when you convert people of other religions to your religion. Convincing Hindus to stay Hindus is not really proselytizing.

actually any missionary work that tries to get others to espouse your beliefs bothers me. leave it to the individual. why should people be out "convincing" others to believe something, even if it is something they already subscribe to?

the best summarization of religion i have ever heard: religions should be like flowers, and people, bees. let the flower with the right fragrance for a bee attract the bee to it.

neither group, christians or "defensive" hindus seem to trust people to decide on religion for themselves.

You can't just label someone of a certain religion and then protect them from other religions. thats whack.

and plus, think about whose purpose is served

It was a great move by the US to deny Modi the visa.He is a thug and a criminal.
Also tribals are not hindu.They have their own religion which is basically animistic.
What is wrong if they want to convert,rather than being treated as outcasts by prejudiced hindus?
You know casteism is injust so you are so insecure about people converting.Modi and BJP have harrassed Christians in india a lot.Our churches have been burnt, priests killed and nuns assaulted.
Modi should be arrested and thrown in jail along with the rest of the BJP, RSS, VHP, and Bajrang Dal.

religions should be like flowers, and people, bees. let the flower with the right fragrance for a bee attract the bee to it.

Agreed. Works well if the bees are 'educated' enough to decide for themselves. Things complicate otherwise.

Let me utter a real life experience:
I was in 8th grade, studying in a Catholic school (as most upper middle class children in India do). Besides reading catholic poems once a week, we also studied "Moral Science" without a chapter on Hinduism in it. I of course did not mind it since I was in a "catholic" school.

A new guy (of so-called dalit caste) joined us after a month of school had already passed. When he became a good friend of ours, while eating lunch with us, he revealed that the school would only admit him if he were baptized. And behold, he did (of course at parents discretion).

Another classic example: A priest throws an idol into a pond in front of illeterate villagers/tribals and asks it to save itself. Of course, it would sink. The priest then says "Idols cannot save themselves, what will they save you? [only] Jesus can".

This is where the flower-bee analogy falls short. Things are not as simple.

Christian and Muslim religions have to understand that all religions are equal - as preached by Hindism "Truth is one, the wise call it by different names".

The flower-bee analogy would make more sense then.

Do any of you think Preeta Bansal's role as Chair of U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom contributed to this decision?

Sachin, I agree, you make some good points. the first example you provide, the parents placed a premium on education over ideology, and for that, i would not say they were "uneducated" to not be able to decide for themselves, that was their value judgment. some would abhor it, others would applaud the sacrifice if it were the only option to guarantee the child a better life. after all, having a baptism does not dictate one's beliefs, nor is it sacrilegious for hindus.

regarding the idol in the pond, if that were a convincing argument to anyone, then perhaps they should be so easily swayed. ultimately i'm just believing that this is a choice people should make for themselves, regardless of how others view them as being "educated" or not. carrying your argument further, you could say that we should regulate who can and cannot have sex based on outside perceptions of whether people are ready to or not, but in reality, this is impossible to regulate or control. i believe the same to be true of people's belief systems.

"Christian and Muslim religions have to understand that all religions are equal - as preached by Hindism "Truth is one, the wise call it by different names"."

also, practicing Hindus that do not exhibit this belief are at just as much fault as Christians and Muslims who do not espouse this equality. i subscribe to that quotation and aim to be as tolerant as possible but many hindus do not.

Another difficult call. On the one hand, Modi is a criminal, on the other hand preempting the Indian judicial system in the way the State Department did is an insult to Indian democracy and its institutions.

The question here seems to be the following: Are the rights of people to be guarded by the nation or by non-national entities committed to protecting the rights of humans in general (HRW etc) or specific groups (CAIR)?

I am an Indian citizen, proud of my nation while fully aware of its many many failings. I do feel that given the massive failure of Indian democracy in Gujarat, it is naive to continue to believe that it is a reliable guarantor of the rights of all Indians. But is it possible to move the primary responsibility of protecting human rights in India to some entity which is not the Indian nation-state? I don't know the answer to that. Even if it is possible, the US government has hardly covered itself in glory on the human rights front that it be given the responsibility of protecting the human rights of the entire world.

So, if we say that the *primary* (not only, just primary) guarantor of the human rights of Indians must be Indian democracy (not the Indian govt, but government along with civil society and all democratic institutions) then we have to evaluate the Modi visa denial in terms of whether this strengthens the hand of this primary guarantor or weakens it. My initial feeling is that it weakens it.

However, the fact that the US government is concerned about the plight of Indians is laudable. And the fact that it acts on that concern is laudable. That it does not always act with sensitivity or farsightedness is well known and does not need to be belaboured here.

To those who campaigned for Modi being denied a visa, congratulations. Sincerely so, because I understand and respect your belief that international action based in powerful countries can lead to a more just society the world over. I don't fully share this view, I would like to but I don't.

Ideally I would have preferred it if we had dealt with this murderer at our own end, but unfortunately our democracy is very much a work in progress (like any other democracy I presume) and so we had to put the US in the unreasonable position of having to decide between either allowing a perpetrator, or at least abettor, of genocide into its borders or exercising its much detested but wholly valid power in disallowing him entry to this country.

Amitabha

Apparently, some of you live in an alternate reality:

'Shuddhi’ as we know it today has its roots in the charged communal atmosphere of the 1920s in northern India, when the Arya Samaj began a massive campaign to convert to the Hindu fold tens of thousands of Muslims belonging to the Rajput Malkana community living in the western districts of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, the ‘shuddhi’ drive seems to have slowed down, if not completely halted. It has, however, been revived in recent years, with reports of numbers of Muslims and, more so, Christians in various parts of India being brought to the Hindu fold...A random check on the internet showed numerous sites run by Hindutva-related groups who seem to be involved in Hindu proselytization activities...

In an appeal dated 21 March 1999, [a Hindutva supporter] writes that it is ‘a matter of great joy’ that some 50,000 Rajput Muslims of Ghaziabad in western Uttar Pradesh have ‘expressed the desire to convert to Hinduism.’ A mass ‘shuddhi’ ceremony was to be held in early 1999 but had to be put off till later owing to lack of funds. In order that the ‘shuddhi’ can be performed, he says, a sum of Rs. 24 million is required, including for the replacement of the ‘burqas’ of Muslim women by ‘saris’ and ‘dhotis’ for ‘lungis’ for their menfolk.

source

Yeah well done George, "prejudiced hindus?" thats right, whats more noble than labeling an entire religion? Maybe converting poor people in exchange for money? I dont give a f*ck if you convert from X religion to Y really just keep your labels to yourself.

Sachin for lack of finesse, thats bullshit. Modi didnt just "not do anything"...he ordered that nothing should be done. People burnt and looted shops the police just stood there and said "order nathi"..we dont have orders. And I have heard this first hand from the people who burnt shops. I am pretty sure it was same in the areas where people were killed.

Maybe the AAOHA people will now invite David Duke. Wonder what the fools at AAOHA are saying now.

On Modi:

Violence by any name is just as wrong. Hinduism, usually synonymous with 'tolerance' and 'non-violence,' ought not to pair itself with bloody fundamentalism. That said, the whole thing for me boils down to the poor understanding of Hinduism abroad, and how this incident does the religion no justice. Sure, Modi is to blame for this, but, when it comes to the average American's perspective on minorities and foreigners, the lessons from one are usually applied to all. This treatment of Modi, while the Musharrafs and others who overtly or tacitly encourage reactive violence are given the red carpet, smells of a double standard and is bound to give Americans the wrong impression of the Hindu cause sans the violence.

Have you also noticed that the US Govt. has been poking its head into all sorts of affairs from Terri Schiavo to the MLB's use of steroids lately? Forget the 10th amendment, rex solutus est a legibus.

On proselytism:

Converting people is soul murder. Even Mother Teresa did this on the streets of Calcutta when she fed and clothed women and children only if they agreed to be baptized. Sure, if all you want are the basic necessities of life, the label of your faith is a small price to pay, but is that all your spirit boils down to? If the quality of one's faith is more important than the number of people who follow it, then Christian charity should be just that and not ask for anything in return, especially not your soul.

Now, if you want to convert and seek out the people who can do it for you, that's your own choice. More power to you. In addition, conversion has brought much unnecessary bad press to Christian groups who have done great things in India purely out of the kindness of their hearts.

You can't just label someone of a certain religion and then protect them from other religions. thats whack.

The reason a person converts to another religion (aside from the allure of food, shelter, etc.) stems from not really "getting" his/her own faith. If you are secure in your own religion, where is your spiritual need to convert? People who label themselves [insert religious affiliation here] have every right to protect the integrity of their community through the power of education, which provides time for Q&A and a lot of introspection. Education, if you notice, has little to do with violence or spiritual barter.

Great news. This should be just the beginning. Next stop, Jagdish Tytler, the butcher of Sikhs in 1984 Delhi riots. Tytler is now the minister for NRI (yes, there is a minister for NRIs) and there is a chance that he might visit USA. So, I urge all to write letters to deny visa for Tytler. (I was surprised when the congress government lodged the protest when modi was denied visa; may be Tytler is the reason).

(in response to Ajju)

I don't think George labelled an entire religion but rather, just the fundamentalist sector that has labelled itself (BHP, VHP, etc.). And in regard to labels:

"... By definition, missionary work is when you convert people of other religions to your religion. Convincing Hindus to stay Hindus is not really proselytizing."

Check your definition because to "proselytize" means to convert and/or affect one or all of the following: faith, doctrine, principles or political affiliation. And a missionary's goal can include conversion, but doesn't always and if you don't think that's true, look up "Ramakrishna" and "Vivekananda."

That said, I'd like to change the tone if only to note that the Commission on International Religious Freedom (they who recommended that the State Dept. deny Modi's visa), is chaired by an Indian-American, Preeta Bansal. And, as far as I know, this is the first time a recommendation from the Commission has resulted in direct action against an individual, not a country.

So, in response to someone who said the Indian Constitution was getting bitch-slapped, no, that's not true. This action is specific and if it were meant for the entire nation, the U.S. would have imposed sanctions such as what they did with China, Iran and so on (which explains why India's "protest" to Modi's visa-denial was so anemic).

So, in response to someone who said the Indian Constitution was getting bitch-slapped, no, that's not true.

Why not? Of course it is being slapped. Modi is innocent until proven guilty. Even the Supreme Court of India (non-BJP appointed) has not given him red signal. Who is HRW and US resolution to do that? Their conclusions were based on observations and interviews and not on conclusive evidences.

I would, however, like Modi to be punished in Court of justice. Until then I will only protest his visit.

Also Narendra Modi does not represent the whole Hindu community. A random audience is sure to blame the whole Hinduism as "extremists" just because of Modi. How can people generalize an culture/ideology based on some over-zealous followers - unless the ideology accepts the actions?

They have their own religion which is basically animistic.
For your kind information, the Indian constituion defines Hinduism as follows: "Realization of the truth that numbers of Gods to be worshiped may be large, yet there are Hindus who do not believe in the worshiping of idols." (Animists/Jains/Buddhists/Muslims/Christians/...)!!!!

Modi is innocent until proven guilty.

If Maya can't get in the country, nobody else can either!

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this line of conversation at all. I'm not talking about the Modi part. I guess we all are. I'm adressing the issue of conversion. Like Anna's family, mine was converted years ago. But I believe that salvation does not come through your family. And it can only come from God. A basic part of Christianity is spreading the gospel of God. According to the New Testament this is through your actions and preaching the word to others. What is the problem here? People can choose to accept it or reject it. Someone gave an example of a person being forced to be baptized in order to enter a school. While it is the school's right to enforce it's rules- it really seems silly to me. Also- the stuff about throwing the idol in the river. I really don't see a problem with that. Even I believe that the idol wouldn't be able to save me but Jesus would and I have personal examples to back up what I'm saying. But thats not the point- your problem is that they are too dumb to choose for themselves- so let RSS and other Hindutva people choose for them. Allright, sorry for the long post and not really addressing it to anyone. Just saw the last string of comments and thought I'd chime in. Thanks for your patience.

well, i think it was mistake on the part of america. Mr. modi was legally elected chief minister for the state of gujarat,india. he should be treated with that dignity. the way in which he was denied visa wrong.

And the matter showing hitler & Nazism in good light, was by mistake, since Mr. modi doesnot write text books him self. You just cannot blame him for that blunder.

There is no case against Modi in any of the courts in India.

I know he was rersponsible for the gujarat catastrope but he was directly involved in that.

Denying Modi's visa was a no-brainer, it's what the Intl. Religious Freedom Act is supposed to do and for the guys who put that resolution up, it's what they're supposed to do (a number of them are on the India caucus). Of course, when it comes down to it, the State Department doesn't really give a shit about Narendra Modi or what anyone in India thinks. They do however care about the people who are just now reading or listening to Al Jazeera, Dawn, etc. and discovering that PM Singh is intervening on behalf of Modi...

A bi-partisan "American" stand on human and religious rights against a man who's been pretty open about being anti-Islam and anti-Christian--what could be better?

There is no case against Modi in any of the courts in India.

Also- the stuff about throwing the idol in the river. I really don't see a problem with that. Even I believe that the idol wouldn't be able to save me but Jesus would and I have personal examples to back up what I'm saying.

Come on, people. You could throw an idol, a crucifix, a menorah or the Qaaba into a river, and no divine hand would reach down from the clouds.

India is a great country, even though not an ideal democracy, it's still a working democracy. One doesn't need to be a philosopher to know what happens to countries who take a easy line towards religious extremism. Look at Pakistan and several other so-called Islamic countries and in what direction they are heading. Persons of Indian origin in US are doubly responsible in the sense that while they enjoy the freedom and safety offered here, they should ensure that the same is available back home. I hope some day Mr Modi will be charged for crimes against humanity at The Hague and wish that the tide of religious extremism in India may ebb though, at present it looks unlikely.

Denying Modi a visa is unspeakable hypocricy - I personally find him objectionable if not something unprintable but Indians are eminently capable of looking after their issues and do not need the imprimatur of the US. And when they fall short, it is a flaw in the Indian democratic process that should be allowed to be corrected.

The problem with India currently is that a large proportion of the middle class Hindu population has come to support violence against minorities; Christians because of conversion and Muslims because of historical reasons(presumed). This support has turned to actual abbetment and participation as happened in the case of Gujrat and happens elsewhere in the form of moral approval. In that respect Gujrat is a phenomenan in it's own right.

Sachin: I was told of similar activities by a friend from Ranchi in Bihar wherein while going to a picnic, the Bus suddenly stopped and all the students got down to give a push taking the names of different Gods and Goddess in turn. The Bus only started when the name of Jesus was taken. It sounded rather funny and naive to me at that time. But the point is that this discussion is about the mass genocide that Mr Modi orchestrated with the conniviance of State institutions and so while such prosyletising activities need not be appreciated, this is not the forum for that. If you are trying to justify what Modi did because of conversions to Christianity by dubious means; then your speach is incoherent.

What we should be more concerned about that how Modi not only got elected after what he did but also that no case was brought against him. In that respect India has a long way to go to catch up with western standards.

There is no case against Modi in any of the courts in India.
That's the heart of the problem, isn't it-- there neither is a case, nor is such a case likely to be won in India. Claiming that as prima facia proof of innocence only works with a functioning criminal justice system. Else it proves nothing.

Manish you are a typical American. Now you have started policing Indian jucicial system.

I love your tribes GUTS

md,
Nothing will happen to Jagdish Tytler. Although he actually was leading mobs to kill Sikhs , who ended up killing more than 3000 Sikhs. (where is the outrage of these Genocide people ??? Thats the problem with FAKE outrage) Thats more people killed than killed in Gujarat.

None of these FAKE outrage people know the FACT that out of the people who got killed in Gujarat riots atleast 15% of them turned out to be Hindus. The people who need a "demon" in order to feel good about themselves dont know this FACT. This fact in no way diminishes the gavity of the tragedy that occured in Gujarat. But there is and there still is an extremely high amount of mistrust between Hindus and Muslims in Gujarat (I can vouch for Baroda, I grew up for part there). Its just matter of next "opportunity" .. both sides are ready to settle scores.

As for Jagdish Tytler's visit to America none of these "concerned" people will say a thing about it. There wont be outrage. Although what Tytler did was a complete politicaly based targeted massacre of people. I guess massacres of Sikhs is not that "sexy" to protest about.
And for those who are REALLY concerned, please take time and if you know someone from Delhi who was there around the time, you will know the horror of it all.

In response to Aiju....I thought I was clear that I was referring to prejudiced Hindus..aka the BJP , VHp , Bajrang Dal and Modi supporting Hindus.
My best frineds are mostly Hinuds.I know that all hindus are not fundamentalist.But I think now especailly among the middle classes, the pendulum has switched to extremism.
When I was working in India, the majority of the Hindus there were pro BJP,which was very disconcerting for me.Oherwise educated, rational and good people supporting a fundamentalist force that attacks Christians and their institutions.
The result is that we have thugs like Modi in power ,leading to loss of life and property for minorities and sullying the good name of our country.
America has done the right thing.In fact people like Advani and Vajpayee (he is as fundamentalist as anyone in the RSS, only he is very two faced)and all other members of extreme right wing and violent organizations should be denied visas .
Denying visas is not enough they should be banned as terrorist groups.
As far as the conversion issue, Hinuds also convert as can be seen by the numerous drug and sex crazed westerners attracted to free love and other such concepts articulated by the great Hindu "holy men" like Osho etc.RSS , VHP etc also is carrying out large scale forced conversion of tribals in Gujarat, Bihar and Jharkhand.

daycrise:
"A basic part of Christianity is spreading the gospel of God. According to the New Testament this is through your actions and preaching the word to others. What is the problem here?"

koran says if you die for your religion you will end up in heaven with honey and a virgin to f***. And that's what a bunch of people beleived when the ramed they plane into WTC.

stop reading FICTION, start reading NON-FICTION books.

Manish,
Indian judicial system maybe flawed.But you think the american judicial system is not flawed?.Your idea on the american judicial system might be different if you would have been born in a black neighbourhood.Or born poor.
http://www.greenpeace.org/news/details?news_id=23840

US should first take care of looking after it's own minorities before judging how other nations are doing it.

US can strip search the defence minister of a country, Deny visa to a ruling chief minister.No problem,cause it knows that the indian govt is not going to stand up against it or any of its educated citizens.

Its being said that USCIRF has a hand in the Modi saga.

USCIRF was headed by Elliot Abram in yr. 2000-2001. The same Elliot Abrams who was one the chief architects of the Iraq war which has a religious overtone to it.

So there you have it, the USCIRF is pontificating to non european countries on one hand and doing a "crusade" type war on other hand. (and dont tell me that the Iraq war is for "democracy" .. and there is no religious aspect to it .. If you think that than you havent heared about "rapture" )

Modi's visa denial has a lot to do with aggressive campaigns by his secular Indian-American detractors. They are rightly upset with him over post-Godhara riots, and with his rabidly communal politics. We ourselves have frequently articulated our contempt for Mr. Modi on our blog. BUT, for these people to cause public embarrassment to India in an effort to silence Mr. Modi, is completely unacceptable.

These Indian-Americans don't live in India, thought fit to abandon their Indian citizenship, and are (correctly) more Americans than Indians. This means they really are not part of the great Indian political dialogue. That these disconnected people are driving US agenda towards India is terrifying. That US listens to them as representatives of Indian thinking is even worse.

There is an orthodoxy among secular Indians (and our Indian-American cousins) that is driven by a tunnel-visioned sense of the world that is, well, frequently stupid. If one doesn't abide by the rules of this leftist orthodoxy, one's loyalties are questioned.

More at:

http://secular-right.blogspot.com/2005/03/secular-shouldnt-have-to-mean-stupid.html

A lot of criticisms and opinion formation going on here! Sadly though it is made by a lot of you who have no idea on the ground realities of communal and ethnic warfare. Indians are very passionate people, and a when a country like India starts moving it is very hard to get it to stop – this is even more true when it moves in the wrong direction, like rioting. Having personally witnessed two communal and ethnic riots across two different countries, I think the BJP govt. did a good job to ensure that the Gujarat riots did not proliferate to the rest of the country.

As far as Modi is concerned, I personally think that he should have done a lot more. But to give him a little bit of credit/benefit of doubt - there is not much he could have done. In such scenarios people don’t fear the cops and civil unrest is mind-bogglingly strong. During the 1992 Ayodhya riots, it took the Indian Army days to suppress the violence. What could have been expected from the Gujarat cops?

And finally people, since we are on a justice seeking roll here – what are we going to do about Kissinger?

Senthil:
My view:
"A basic part of Christianity is spreading the gospel of God. According to the New Testament this is through your actions and preaching the word to others. What is the problem here?"
Your view:
"koran says if you die for your religion you will end up in heaven with honey and a virgin to f***. And that's what a bunch of people beleived when the ramed they plane into WTC."

I love the differences here, You pick extremist Muslim practises to prove a point- while I tell you what moderate Christians are doing. (Believe me, I haven't forgotten about the Crusades.) Hmm, I wonder if there is a difference between telling people about Christ and killing in the name of Allah? Hmm... Maybe someone else should start reading more non-fiction.

The latest news says that, in retaliation to the US denial of Modi's visa, approx. 150 Hindu fundies just stormed an Ahmedabad Pepsi warehouse and set fire to it. More here.

What a bunch of rampant idiots! Thanks a lot, shitwits, for further sullying Hinduism's reputation abroad. Bet you won't quit your American outsourced jobs, though!

Now, I will go pray to the goddess that all irrationally violent people miraculously disappear from the face of the earth.

George can you please specify how the BJP attacks Christians and its institutions?? Incidents of violence against christians don not autmatically qualify as BJP instigated offenses. As far as christian institutions can you deny that the majority get their funding from evangelical sources outside of india?? Are you going to tell me that these sources have good intentions towards india and its culture??

"America has done the right thing.In fact people like Advani and Vajpayee (he is as fundamentalist as anyone in the RSS, only he is very two faced)and all other members of extreme right wing and violent organizations should be denied visas ."

You've got to be kidding me, your labelling a formal prime minister of india a terrorist. This is ridiculous and i'm sure i'm not the only one who thinks so. And spare us the lecture on indian minorities, it is well known that indian minorities are present in all walks of life and well represented. According to you simply being a proud hindu or pro indian culture is anti-minority, which is not true. You condemn Modi for loss of life and property in Gujurat for minorites, and rightfully so. It was a despicable thing and should not be tolerated. But where is the condemnation for the perpetrators who started the whole mess. The "minorities" who burnt the train in the first place. Is it too much to ask for an equal condemnation, instead of repeatedly damning one side and implying civilizational and religious overtones.

George:

My bad, I misunderstood what you were saying. But it would require some evidence for me to believe that Vajpayee is two faced. The way I look at it, he is a moderate in a not so moderate party - and considering that the BJP is not going away anytime soon - we need more moderates in BJP.

Pavan I agree with most of what you say, except the whole condemnation of minorities part. It is ridiculous to expect that everytime someone criticizes modi they should criticize the people who burnt the train. The people who burnt the train were ass*oles and should be shot, but it is stupid to demand that every person against modi display a badge of fairness by criticizing the crowd everytime he criticizes modi.

Pavan,
No one needs to condemn Muslims, because no one is condemning Hindus either.
People here are condemning Modi not because hes a Hindu but because of his complicity in the riots.

Ajju I guess i was rambling a little bit before, I obviously would not expect people to criticize the perpetrators every time they criticize modi. I know that is unrealistic. I guess what I was trying to say is that often in my opinion I see a certain one sided presentation of facts and incidents, and then this being used for negative publicity towards a particular community. Note I am not talking about Modi or his image, both be damned, I am talking about how sometimes these things are used to create an overly negative picture of india and indians.

Al Mujahid,
Again sorry for the rambling i did not intend to say one must condemn muslims. Condemning a whole group of people is not right. But in my experience both anecdotal and looking through actual news reports and what not, I have found very few instances of a lot of people condemning both ACTS. Now the Indian American Muslim council, CAIR and a host of other organizations were against Modi's visit, and their reasons are respectable. But i have not seen the Indian American Muslin Council issue any statement condemning those who burnt the train, only a shrill outcry and following smear campaign on everything pertaining to hindutva, and right wing middle class hindus, some of it deserved some of it not. I hope I am wrong about this, but till this date I have not seen any forceful comment regarding such.

One more thing, for those applauding the US for its actions in this matter. See the following link and scroll to November 1997. During that time the United States allowed the Taliban Foreign minister (name??) to come to the US, meet officials from UNOCAL and the State Department about constructing a gas pipeline across Afghanistan. The point of this is for those who think the American Gov't setup especially the State Department rejected Modi for any higher moral reasons is in my opinion being naive. There is a war on Iraq, many Muslims in America are from south asian heritage, many of them are greatly opposed to American Foreign policy. Perhaps this was a sort of carrot for them I dont know, but it seems worth considering. One last thing, I wonder why there wasn't a huge outcry when the taliban minister came to the US and such activism. After all their attrocities were on a scale several times more than what happend in Gujurat, also against Muslims, only difference being they were committed by Muslims. Where was the activism, moral indignation, and outrage then? Just food for thought

Here's the link i am refering to
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm

... you are a typical American. Now you have started policing Indian jucicial system. I love your tribes GUTS

Indian judicial system maybe flawed.But you think the american judicial system is not flawed?

I guarantee if 1,000 people were assassinated in organized murders, someone would be convicted in the U.S.

You mean like with the American Indians? or lynched Black people? Or more recently, when the U.S. just keeps outsourcing it?

A reminder of what happened in the 'disturbance' in Gujarat
"Even pregnant women were not spared. In some cases, their bellies were cut open and the fetus was pulled out before the women were killed.99 A gravedigger at a mass grave site next to the Dariyakhan Ghummat camp in the Shahibaug area told Human Rights Watch: "There were at least three pregnant women and one of the fetuses was partially hanging out. We had to stick it back in before burial. If the fetus was completely removed then we left it out but still buried it with the mother."100

I have never known a riot which has used the sexual subjugation of women so widely as an instrument of violence as in the recent mass barbarity in Gujarat. There are reports everywhere of gang-rape, of young girls and women, often in the presence of members of their families, followed by their murder by burning alive, or by bludgeoning with a hammer and in one case with a screw driver.

A woman who washed the bodies of female victims before burial at the same site told Human Rights Watch about the conditions of the bodies upon arrival:

I washed the ladies' bodies before burial. Some bodies had heads missing, some had hands missing, some were like coal, you would touch them and they would crumble. Some women's bodies had been split down the middle. I washed seventeen bodies on March 2, only one was completely intact. All had been burned, many had been split down the middle. On March 3 fifteen more bodies came. Then I just threw water over them, I couldn't stand to be around them anymore.
Source : http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/India0402-03.htm#P527_94439

For anyone who is interested in why the women were specially victimized in the riots in Gujarat there's a very good article on the obsession of the Right Wing in India with what they consider the uber virility of indians muslims by Martha Nussbaum at http://www.bostonreview.net/BR29.3/nussbaum.html

manish,
Iam not sure how much you know about what happened in the gujarat riots.If you are trying to say not taking more governmental action to stop the riots, as an organized murder by the person who could have stopped it.Then you should read this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1182431,00.html

Al Mujahid,
you think when two groups clash there will be only one group that will be making attrocities??.

You mean like with the American Indians?

Or lynched Black people?

Or more recently, when the U.S. just keeps outsourcing it?

Al Mujahid,
What a hypocritical behaviour of describing the horrors of a horrific event that fits your own political agenda.
Thats why I posted my comments about the selective outrage which is getting outraged when it fits ones own world view.

As I noted in my comment above 15% of actual fatalities were Hindu (apart from the people burnt alive in the train). I am sure the above story could be descriving anyone of the Hindus just as much as it describes a muslim persons situation.

I bet most people (the selective Outrage people) dont know the fact about the make up of casualties .....

Selective outrage and demonizing also serves another purpose... It gives a pass to every other kind of atorcious events and persons. The same way smoking is demonized to an extent that every other kind of excess gets a pass (such as over eating) ...

Dear RC,
You accuse me of selective outrage. Ha! Did you even read the excerpt which I posted above. The excerpt talks about atrocities against women. It does not even mention Muslims.
So the problem here is not my selective outrage, but your selective reading.
In the link I posted about the Gujarat riots from HRW, it talks about atrocities against both Hindus and Muslims !

Saurav,
The atrocities against native americans happened a century back.
Public lynchings havnt happened for decades now.
Please cite some more current evidence for equating American Justice with Indian Justice.
It is laughable that you would purport to equate the Indian Justice System and Law and Order situation to American Justice System.

Al mujahid,
US judicial system have been evolving for more than 200 yrs and still it was not able to bring justice till a couple of decades ago.whereas Indian judicial system is young, just 50 yrs.

daycruise
"A basic part of Christianity is spreading the gospel of God. According to the New Testament this is through your actions and preaching the word to others. What is the problem here?"

Don't you think Jesus would have been labeled as a "SPAMER", if he did the same thing in this internet age.My point was every religion says it is good to die for the religion, including christianity and hinduism.All these books were manipulated to the need's of that time.You don't have to necessarily follow a set of advice that was written for people who lived 2000 yr ago.

Dear Al Mujahid,
The HRW might say that the atrocities against women were both for Hindus and Muslims, but that did not reflect in the piece that you posted here.
Lets get real, you wanted to shock us about the brutality and viciousness of the riots by not mentioning that the victim could be Hindu as well.
But I respect the fact that you agree on principle that the horrific events description could be for Hindus or Muslims.

Somewhere up there, I think it was KXB who wrote: Is this the impression you got when talking to thousand of Pandit families living in squalor in Jammu refugee camps?

This is not about KXB in particular, but I often wonder how many people who say this have actually visited those Jammu refugee camps. (I have). (Also in Delhi).

Manish, thank you for asking this: Which is the greater insult to India: a canceled business trip, or that a mass murderer is in elected office?

Qoute "Manish, thank you for asking this: Which is the greater insult to India: a canceled business trip, or that a mass murderer is in elected office?"

- There is another a mass murderer in office, Jagdish Tytler. (but I guess that does not count ..because like I said before ... its not "sexy" to protest the massacre of Sikhs !!)

- So kudos to selectively outraged people, it will help others if you publish your criteria of selection on which to get "outraged" (sarcasm) .. I have a few guesses but I dont want to judge !!

- How about protesting mass murderer here in the US who is presiding over the killing of 100,000 Iraqis (Johns Hopkins estimate .. a conservative one) or that does not fit the definition of "genocide" ???

Yay! The comments are open again!

One thing I alway notice about people who claim "selective outrage" is that they don't seem to ever press their own claims. By which I mean, if you think that Jagdish Tytler (whoever that is...I really don't know nearly enough about the amritsar massacre) has done as much wrong as Modi, then you're free to organize other people and press claims against him. If you do it and your claims are legitimate, I think you would find fairly quickly that you're forced into an alliance with folks like Campaign Against Genocide because all of these issues tend to be linked at heart. One alternative is to never object to any wrongdoing, and the other is to build alliances with people who, at heart, object to all wrongdoing.

Your choice, but the latter gives you a lot more credibility.

RC,
If you were the US Secretary of State, would you have revoked Modi's visa ?

manish,

Remember John "death squad" negreponte who repeatedly gets promoted to top diplomatic positions? It looks like central americans's life do not count in your scheme of things. Are central americans low life?

Manish,

here's the link on death squad negreponte. It's not in US but do you think it is less immoral to kill innocents in honduras than in usa? The link is below:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14485

Saurav,

It's Delhi massacre. Several people who are outraged about Modi tend to equivocate on the sikh mass murder by congress in 1984. May be selective outrage is a basic human trait.

There is another a mass murderer in office, Jagdish Tytler. (but I guess that does not count ..because like I said before ... its not "sexy" to protest the massacre of Sikhs !!) [RC]

Several people who are outraged about Modi tend to equivocate on the sikh mass murder by congress in 1984. May be selective outrage is a basic human trait. [ab]

it's a national shame India hasn't carried out its own garbage in either Gujarat or the Sikh riots... I guarantee if 1,000 people were assassinated in organized murders, someone would be convicted in the U.S. In India we vote the culprits into power (Tytler and Modi).

How about protesting mass murderer here in the US who is presiding over the killing of 100,000 Iraqis... [RC]

It looks like central americans's life do not count in your scheme of things. [ab]

Manish,

You brought up america's role in the last twenty years and I mentioned the role of american right wing politics in central america. I do not understand why you should be defensive about right wing politics which has caused great harm to minorities here and people abroad.

You also mentioned tulia and it's unfortunate that you seem to think less of sufferings of blacks here. Vanita Gupta who handled the tulia case mentioned that what happened in tulia is just the tip of the iceberg. The criminal justice system is a cruel joke on minorities and especially blacks. Your rationale is hardly a consolation for the blacks who are languishing in prisons. The fact of the matter is right wing politics suck big time for minorities and backward classes everywhere.

Al Mujahid,
If I were Sec. of state not only I would NOT have revoked visa for Modi (inspite of not being a fan of Modi), I would also have not dis-respected Iran and its democracy. I would treat Arab and Muslim nations with the same respect that I would any western European nations.

I would NOT have been extremely hypocritical by calling Syria to pull troops out of Lebanon while representing a country that has ILLEGALLY occupied a once soverien nation of Iraq.

So I would have done a lot of things, but I am just a poor reident alien. Cant even vote.

It's Delhi massacre. Several people who are outraged about Modi tend to equivocate on the sikh mass murder by congress in 1984. May be selective outrage is a basic human trait.

Like I said, I know way too little about it. How about pointing me to some information, so I can condemn what the government did with as much zeal as you have :)

In any case, I'll reiterate that while you're probably right that "selective outrage is a basic human trait", that doesn't make it logically defensible. So why don't you abandon yours and I'll abandon mine and we can together condemn the United States for its Latin American and Iraq policy (and many, many other things) as well as condemn Modi, the BJP, and the Indian polity for their handling of the Gujarat massacre (among other things).

And then we can talk about what it actually means that Modi lost his visa and how to advance a reality of a more decent, safer, and more equitable South Asia? That is what you're politically interested in, right?

Manish, the problem with the guys who jump up and say "You didn't condemn the Sikh massacre in 1984, so shut up about Gujarat now" is this: they want to hold that up to make the case that Gujarat was no big deal. (The wholesome BJP did exactly that even in their resolution condeming the visa rejection). And they don't like being told that Gujarat was indeed a big deal. A huge, stinking, tragic, atrocious deal that is a permanent blot on my country. Like 1984 was.

I've always believed that the massacre of Sikhs in 1984 was the worst crime in our history -- that is, if I have to actually make a choice among horrible crimes. And I also believe that it is our failure to punish the Bhagats and Sajjan Kumars of 1984 that fuel subsequent crimes like Bombay 1992/3, Gujarat 2002. It fuels the Modis and Thackerays who know this country will never find the will to punish them, the Advanis and Vajpayees and Raos who wink at them.

And in your listing of atrocities all the way back to caveman Og, I'm appalled to note that you didn't mention the Roman assault on Carthage. You closet pinko Roman-lover.

Saurav,
The only problem I have with the term "genocide" is that .. who defines it??

While CAG is all over Gujarat, there is not even a mention to 1984 and the people who were indicted (but never convicted) of it ... It just smells political !!!

Dont get me wrong, I dont want to be-little your or anyone's real concern about horrors of Gujarat, and I think it is sincere, but I just want to draw attention of concerned Indian diasporic youngsters to not get used into something that smells politically motivated.

I also wouldnt be presumtious to suggest that you cant make that decision for yourself. Just pointing out a few facts that might come in handy when making that decision.

How about CAG take take up a concerted effort to make the US sign on the the International Criminal Court ??

RC,
You do realize that the Delhi Massacre happened in 84, when most of the people who post on here were less than 10 years old.
Gujarat massacre however was witnessed by us in all its macabre glory over the internet.
Btw why is that you are so outraged over the Delhi massacre but fail to mention the Bangladeshi massacre of 71 in which more than a million Bengalis were slaughtered by the Pakistani Army.
I guess in 84 when people were expressing their outrage over the Delhi massacre you must be reminding them of forgetting the Bangla massacre of 71.
I dont know if you were alive in 71 to reprimand people over selective outrage of the Bangla massacre while ignoring the partition massacres.

The U.S. Dept. of State didn't go through this much reasoning when they denied the visa. If they did, they'd most likely lose their argument when they began debating which genocide was worse...

Gujarat was bad and so was '84, '92, '48, '71, Iraq, the killing fields, Pinochet, etc.. I think we can agree on that and just because someone doesn't raise their voice about '84 et al doesn't mean they should back off the Modi-argument now, especially since comparing any of those things to this, given the U.S. response, is apples&oranges.

But, okay, if you're going to get into it, then think about it for what it is and not what you want it to be. In other words, talk about it from the political angle, not the human-rights side of things because that's not where any of this is coming from...

The report that got this ball rolling has been sitting int he State Department for two years. It's not new and the guys who used it to get Modi's visa denied could've acted on it a while ago if they'd wanted to make a point about human rights (singling out one guy doesn't say half as much as condemning a nation, especially since it would have meant more to do so when the Vajpayee was in office).

So, why now? Well, it could have something do with the guys on the India Caucus trying to get PM Singh out of office by making him look weak (to his own people) in a face-off with the U.S.. Or, it could be a a politically safe way to show the world, in light of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, that the U.S. does believe in defending human rights and more importantly, defending Muslims. Or, it could be both.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but the entire discussion seems to be ignoring why the U.S. really did what they did and is instead taking a moral high-ground based on actions that had little to do with morality. It was political, it was supposed to score points with constituents in the U.S., Muslims around the world and set the stage for a political platform for/against Singh.

So, if we're going to have outrage, how about we direct at the fact that Gujarat is being recognized primarily for its political worth and not its effect on the moral compass of this great big genocidal world.

Wow, sd, that was really well put. A couple of points to try and figure this all out:

Rep. Frank Pallone, India Caucus guy, has objected to the visa revocation and actually offered a defense of Modi (granted, he reps NJ, but even so). You also left out that this revocation happened a few days after Condoleeza Rice left New Delhi, and more of the Indian than diaspora source I've seen on this have mentioned that.

Building off of what you said and those facts, my guess for what's behind the move: PR directed at the Muslim world, placate evangelicals in the U.S., a general "human rights" move, make India look bad as it seeks enhanced international clout (it's always helpful to build up a case against India in advance in case the need to smack down should the need ever come up later--e.g. Security Council reform that's about to happen).

There are some more charitable interpretations you could come up with, like Abhi did in his post--e.g. marginalizing the Hindu Right for whatever reason (e.g. you see it as an inflammatory cause of islamist terror, like the Palestine issue), recognizing that, overall, a more secular india will be more receptive to American products and cultural exports, etc.

Thanks for giving me a lot to think about.

The only problem I have with the term "genocide" is that .. who defines it??

Some diplomatic-consensus definitions are here at Wikipedia. However, your point is well taken that it's a loaded term. Everyone defines/uses it as they like, and usually for particular political purposes.

I'm probably more comfortable with "pogrom", I've realized, for Gujarat because of the scale of the particular incident(s) and because genocide really is a loaded term that should be used rarely. However, maybe that's because I don't know enough about Gujarat and because I have Indian guilt/shame about it (sort of like the way Hindutva people use the neutral "riots"). The massacres did allegedly have some of the classic features of genocide--like assaulting women's bodies as a means of desecrating a community.

Anyway, important as it is what we label it, the more important point is how we describe what it was: a concerted and organized effort with state complicity (if not active direction) to murder, sexually assault, and otherwise destroy Muslims and their lives in Gujarat.

That's why all those points about X number of Hindus getting killed during the massacres are misleading--once you initiate an organized and violent campaign targeted against one group, it seems self-evident that there will be spillover and reactions against others, including Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, Atheists, and Agnostics, who get caught up in the violence and the turmoil.

Quote "That's why all those points about X number of Hindus getting killed during the massacres are misleading-"

That was pointed out to show people who know that however the riots started they became out of hand and as a result even Hindus got killed.
That did not happen in 84, all the casualties of 84 were Sikhs for obvious reasons.

Quote "I'm not trying to be a dick, but the entire discussion seems to be ignoring why the U.S. really did what they did and is instead taking a moral high-ground based on actions that had little to do with morality. It was political, it was supposed to score points with constituents in the U.S., Muslims around the world and set the stage for a political platform for/against Singh."

I agree to above almost completely. Political operatives manipulating well meaning citizens is not new.
See what is going on in the Terry Schiavo case.. its disgusting how the Chri. fundamentalist are being appeased at the expense of someone's family problem, in the guise of MORAL VALUES.

Just a simple question:
1) Why didn't "Isarel" minister "Sharon" gets visa denial?
There were more muslims killed in Isarel than Gujarat.

2) Why "Bangladesh" minister gets visa?
There were so many Hindu killed in Bangladesh, than in muslim in Gujarat.

3) Why "Kashmir" minister gets visa?
No body has seen human right violation, like this in world. Unfortunatly Indian news media doesn't have page to cover this, They do have page to print UK/USA flood/snow storm.

*) There are some NGO feeling they are proud to stop Modi visa?
I ask:
Where is your pride
For muslim killed in Isarel?
For hindu killed in Bangladesh?
For hindu & solders killed in Kashmir?
For people killed/abused in Iraq?
For native Indians killed in USA?

I 'll say you don't have guts for it!

How I see:
India is a hindu country. Muslims were invited to stay here in 1947, as they were screwed by Pakistan. If they burn hindu live in train in Gujarat, than they have to face sequence of reactions.
If you burn someone else house, than someone might burn your house also.

I believe Gandhi, a Gujarati who we should all look up to, abhorred this kind of thinking. "An eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind."

Gujarati,
I thought you were simply foolish, until you said this:

How I see:
India is a hindu country. Muslims were invited to stay here in 1947, as they were screwed by Pakistan. If they burn hindu live in train in Gujarat, than they have to face sequence of reactions.
If you burn someone else house, than someone might burn your house also.

and then I knew you were a bigot.

fight..s*ns of b*tch*s....fight....all you guys(hindus,muslims, christians, and the little sprinkling of parsis) can do is fight.

first and foremost....stop comparing.....why are we always comparing....comparing modi to bush....bush to osama....osama to larry flynt....just stop all this wh*re SH*T.

2000 people were gutted in 2002.....i don't care if they were muslims hindus or syrian christians.....just think about that....and please don't compare this event to the crusades or some mughal invasion.....600 years back the foreign policy of any kingdom was blitzkrieg....so when a blitzkeig happens in this day and age of vibrators....we need to do something about it...

i want all of you to take a good look at yourself in the mirrors and stop reading up some old english translation of the quran or copy/pasting some crappy literature from the VHP website.

and think ...just think as a human for a minute..there u go again....thinking about darfur now!!!!!!!

I find it amusing that second generation americans on this board are somewhat opaque to trends in Indian history.

There have been HUNDREDS of communal riots in Gujarat (Ahmedabad being a volatile flashpoint) since the 1700s. Yes, the 1700s. Hindu-Muslim riots with all the blood and gore is a subcontinental staple and is associated with specific geographical locales.

The riots in 1969 were FAR worse (widespread) than the 2002 riots and they happened when a CONGRESS government in power. Of course there was no internet or instant news in those days.

To conclude that Modi who has a record of making intemperate statements somehow planned and conducted the 2002 killings is off the mark. To effectively do so requires the acquiescence of the bureaucracy, police etc. etc. etc. And the perperators of the violence are lumpen, low caste youth (the so-called Dalits beloved of left wingers!).

The problem is that there is considerable (putting it mildly) historical animosity between Hindus and Muslims in parts of Gujarat. Even IF there had been a congress government in place, the KILLINGS would have happened. The army took a couple of days to come in because they were all deployed on the border. The presence or absence of Modi is not particularly important.

If the Indian Americans on this board ponder the AFTERMATH of the temple massacre conducted by Islamic militants after the 2002 riots, they will note that riots were avoided.

Compared to the riots of earlier decades (some non religious), there has been considerable progress in reducing bloodshed. In fact most of India is remarkably peaceful, much more so than any American metro zone.

One can hope there is no repeat of such incidents unlike places like Kashmir and Bangladesh where Hindus have been victims of ethnic cleansing and mass murder. Gujarat by comparison is an oasis of peace and prosperity. In fact, they should have learnt their lessons and react appropriately in case of a triggering event such as the train burning incident in Godhra.

Of course the visa denial is going to make Modi a hero and enlargen his constituency, besides the self-congratulatory back patting.

For second-gen american desi analysts, read the article at the rediff link below. (I do think the author confuses Indians and Indian Americans.)

Even though I abhor what happened in Gujrat in 2002, I also find it disturbing that Indian Americans have caused a decision which is problematic for India as a nation. Visa is but a small issue and when you compare the atrocities of other assorted dictators including our neighbor to the west, it seems like a highly selective decision. The discussion on this board is very academic. What people like CAG and other assorted leftists and evangilists don't realize is that they are making "the right wing of the right wing" of Indian politics stronger. If people on this board think that Vajpayee and Advani are hardliners - they don't know much about India or its politics. Although i don't want to recite history - both long past and modern, it would be foolish to think that it has not had an effect on a significant segment of Hindu population. The continous double standards of "communcal secularist" will continue to haunt both left of center folks as well as moderate hindus. For example, just the other day Mr. Ram Vilas Paswan of Bihar said that he would be willing to take support of a particualr party to form a government in Bihar if a minority - read muslim is made the chief minister of Bihar. Who is this Mr. Paswan? He is a cabinet minister in this UPA govt which also includes My. Tytler. Now if someone from the right had an equivalent statement, so called secularist would have gone nuts - including folks at CAG. This sort of duplicity is the oxygen for Mr. Modi and his ilk. Since it is hard enough for secualrists of minority vote bank type to figure this out, it would be harder for Indian Americans - with lose facts and half baked evidence to sort out Indian politics.

If it is possible for Indian Americans to get off their high horse and let a billion Indians solve their own problems, they will do a great service to India.

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/21raman.htm

(On a side note - Hmmm. Interesting to note that second-generation Indian-Americans thing "ABCD" is a derogatory term. Soon it will be politically incorrect to use this term?)

Saurav,
About why CAG labels Gujarat massacres as 'genocide', the reasoning is laid out here:

According to independent human rights observers, the events that transpired in Gujarat between February 28 and March 02 conform to the specifications of genocide. These events can be classified as a genocide under the Second Article of the Genocide Convention of 1948, adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on December 09,
1948, which delineates the following criteria in determining ‘genocide’. ‘Genocide’, the Convention clarifies, occurs when any of the following acts are committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group,such as:
A. Killing members of the group.
B. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
C. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
D. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
E. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
In Gujarat, as the International Initiative for Justice identified, the (first) four of the above criteria were met: killing members
of the group through massacre; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group through massacre, rape, burning, stabbing, beating, etc.; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part through massacre, economic boycott, psychic, physical, and social trauma; and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group through rape, trauma, destruction of family, sexual violence and mutilation.

There is no case against Modi in any of the courts in India.

[...] Of the cases filed, there are currently two civil suits against Narendra Modi for crimes against humanity and genocide. Some of the cases include:
Dawood Case: Among those attacked by Hindu extremists in February-March of 2002 were four British nationals, Mohamed Aswat, Sakil Dawood, Saeed Dawood, and Imran Dawood, and an Indian national Yusef Palagar, as the vehicle they were traveling in was stopped by a well-organized road-block erected in close proximity to the local police station on a main highway leading into Gujarat. Targeted as Muslims, the group were stabbed and burned. Only Imran Dawood survived. On April 30, 2004, the widows and relatives of the murdered British Muslims filed a Civil Suit in district court in Gujarat against Chief Minister Modi and the state government for crimes against humanity and genocide.
Best Bakery Case: This case was filed to seek redressal for the torching of fourteen persons in the Best Bakery Building in Vadodara, Gujarat, on the night of March 01, 2002. The attack coincided with the India-wide bandh called for by the Sangh Parivar and endorsed by Modi and the Gujarat Government. [...] Based on evidence that the case could not proceed in Gujarat, on April 12, 2004, the Supreme Court transferred the Best Bakery case to Mumbai, in the state of Maharashtra. On February 09, 2005, the 43rd witness in the Best Bakery case, whose residence is within forty feet of the Best Bakery site, recanted his statements as eyewitness, and was subsequently declared hostile. Following the demands of the NHRC, on February 21, 2005, the Supreme Court granted a three-month extension for its self-appointed high-level committee investigation into allegations and counter allegations of key witnesses and activists seeking to challenge the order of acquittal.

Z's post illustrates why "independent human rights observers" have very little credibility outside their own circles. Horrible though the Gujarat riots were, they were no more genocide than the Godhra train burning or the riots against Sikhs led by current UPA minister Jagdish Tytler in 1984.

I think that it was necessary to lie in order to stop Modi from visiting the US is quite telling.

http://www.religionandpolicy.org/show.php?p=1.1.1558

"Also since taking office, Mr. Modi has overseen the introduction of Nazi literature into Gujarat education standards."

I find it amusing that second generation americans on this board are somewhat opaque to trends in Indian history.

Those of us who are ascribing misconduct to Modi are not "opaque"; we're using better analytical tools (and less bias) to understand the history than you are. I mean, I'm happy to join you in a protest of Divide and Rule in front of the British embassy if you'd like, but I think it's less directly relevant to the issue at hand than Modi's conduct. If you want to see what I believe about Modi's responsibility, read the Human Rights Watch report; it's the most credible, non-partisan source I've come across.

If it is possible for Indian Americans to get off their high horse and let a billion Indians solve their own problems, they will do a great service to India.

Please keep in mind that that's why some of us got involved in the protest in the first place. It seems that some of our uncles and aunties (like the ones who invited Modi) are heavily funding Hindutva; once they stop, I'll be happy to defer unless I see a clear and urgent need (like a tsunami or a genocide).

Also, try not to label all "Indian Americans" or ABCDS or "Second Generation" people as if they have one opinion. I certainly don't believe that the two of you share opinions with Jyoti Basu, so why lump us all together?

Saurav - My abcd comment was half in jest. So please excuse.

Are you also worried about the money being sent by evangelists to india to indulge in gratitous conversion activites? Are you also against money being sent by Saudi Arabia to expand their wahabism?

As with most posters on this site, I too think that Gujurat 02 was horrible. It is not some money from uncle and aunties that is spreading Hindutava. It is rabid communal secularism (i know it sounds like an oxymoron) which is feeding Hindutva and providing it sustainance. For example in India - Uniform Civil code is considered communal. Leftist in India don't tire to paint this as fundamentalist idea from the right. Their counterparts FOIL (members of CAG) live under one in the US but consider it communal in India. Why the double standard? Where is CAG and its members protesting against this anomaly of Indian constitution. The issues between BJP and the parties of the left of center are well documented to ennumerate here but needless to say that policies of Congress in last 50 years have much more to do with the rise of the BJP then with few dollars that uncle and aunties might have sent across the Atlantic.

or the riots against Sikhs led by current UPA minister Jagdish Tytler in 1984.

I think that it was necessary to lie in order to

"Also since taking office, Mr. Modi has overseen the introduction of Nazi literature into Gujarat education standards."

You think that's a lie? What do you have to say about this: In Modi's Gujarat, Hitler is a textbook hero

Z: The link below from rediff in response to your link from TOI. While not defending Guj gov. for its actions during the riots. is it possible that CAG is going overboard with this Hitler bit? The problem with this hit and run evidence is that none of us will know the truth. The real truth about this text business will come out if you get a scanned copy of the text book posted. Also post the date of publcation of the book to see who was in power when the book came out. Then we will what exactly is the truth. Also if you can find what other 24 states of India say about this subject will also be insightful.

Better to do full research instead of slapping shoddy evidence...... (BTW, I don't know whose position is correct)

Also in Tytler - Don't get tired buddy. If you have stepped into a noble mission why be selective. Its tiring to see protesters be one sided.

Congress glorifying Hitler: BJP

September 30, 2004 21:54 IST

The Bharatiya Janata Party on Thursday blamed the Congress for glorifying Hitler and Nazism in schoolbooks in Gujarat, saying these were brought out in 1986 when the Congress was in power.

The Narendra Modi government plans to withdraw these books, party spokesman Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said in New Delhi.

Naqvi said he had a telephonic talk with Modi in the wake of reports that "in Gujarat, Hitler is a textbook hero".

He said the CM told him that the books were published when the Congress was at the helm of affairs.

Naqvi also dismissed Congress criticism over certain schoolbooks in Gujarat in which Kashmir has been depicted as part of Pakistan. He said what had been shown was a physical map and not a political one.

From -

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/sep/30guj.htm

Better to do full research instead of slapping shoddy evidence......

Also in Tytler - Don't get tired buddy. If you have stepped into a noble mission why be selective.

I'm gone for a few hours and I return to our very own communal riot, how nice...

Saurav, thanks for taking what I said seriously, I do think the political angle is more important here.

I'm not sure what the real intention was or is, but I do know that Modi has now attributed the denial to "anti-India" groups and, if you plug that into a Bush-esque "anti-America" formula, you come up with the rebirth of nationalism and PM Singh wasn't built for that.

Abhi also mentions the same argument in the "The Modi situation: a conspiracy theory"-post and the only point on which we differ is that he says its bad for the BJP and Modi. We'll have to wait for the answer on that one, but we do know that it has been good for the U.S. because every major Islamic publication has picked up the news.

As for Pallone, co-founder of the Caucus, I think he's sincere in his human rights interest, but I don't think holds true for everyone (certainly not for the State Department who timed the visa-denial to break on the same day Rice lauded "Pakistan's democracy")... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Caucus prefers the trade-relationship the U.S. had with India under the BJP as opposed to the one it has now and that's enough of a reason to set up Singh using a politician's dream a.k.a. a risk-free Modi.

In any case, Pallone and Modi both addressed the Association of Indian Americans of North America yesterday (Madison Square Garden; Modi by remote) and is there any way you can get your hands on a copy of the transcripts? I don't want to speculate too much, but from what I hear, Modi does not mention the visa-situation, but does declare that Gujarat is a much better place for citizens and NRIs with the BJP running it... It would be good to see what he actually says, maybe that would shift this argument out of the abstract.

(sorry, I'm assuming that you or someone on this list is in NY and has access)

Z, stop laughing. This is a serious matter eh? As i said in my post regarding the hitler in the text book, i do not know who is telling the truth - TOI or BJP spokesman. The problem with your evidence is that it is a copy of what someone elese wrote which itself is taken from some other publication. If you do a google search - you find numerous sites and publications with similar statements - meaning there could have been only one publication which did some primary research. The rest copy and pasted - including CAG. If you want people to believe you - with all the resources at your disposal - why don't you present primary research which shows that the text book contained the aforementioned bit about nazis etc. and it was produced during Modi's regime.

Until then, you can pontificate all you want but except the choir nobody is buying it.

And as Saurav said about gratitous classifcations - do not group some posters as Modi supporters. Is it possible to be both against Modi and leftist communal secualrists at the same time? I think yes!!!!

Saurav - My abcd comment was half in jest. So please excuse.

I care if you're being derogatory, by I'm trying to embrace the label. I am an ABCD and it's not your fault or mine as much as American race, queer (and other) politics.

Are you also worried about the money being sent by evangelists to india to indulge in gratitous conversion activites? Are you also against money being sent by Saudi Arabia to expand their wahabism?

Yes. And Sri Lankan Buddhist nationalism. And U.S. Christian fundamentalism that keeps poor women across the world from having access to abortions. And the Indonesian government for cracking down militarily on separatist groups...etc. I thought this either/or game had been laid to rest.

As with most posters on this site, I too think that Gujurat 02 was horrible. It is not some money from uncle and aunties that is spreading Hindutava. It is rabid communal secularism (i know it sounds like an oxymoron) which is feeding Hindutva and providing it sustainance.

It sounds like an oxymoron because it is. "rabid communal secularists", almost by definition, can only be a very small group (unless you're mischaratcerizing them). The real problem is that the Indian independence movement and Congress were too elite driven and that left a huge hole for Hindu fundamentalists to exploit.

Why the double standard? Where is CAG and its members protesting against this anomaly of Indian constitution. The issues between BJP and the parties of the left of center are well documented to ennumerate here but needless to say that policies of Congress in last 50 years have much more to do with the rise of the BJP then with few dollars that uncle and aunties might have sent across the Atlantic.

I can only speak for myself, but, without knowing enough of the specific ramifications of the civil code, I would argue that the spirit behind them is beautiful and a recognition that in the Indian state, as in every other state, there are disempowered groups (i prefer that rather than "minorities" because women are usually majorities). How that plays out and whether it's been adequately sold to people at the grassroots level is a different question, but it's not a communal issue to me; it's exploited as a communal issue to win support for Hindu nationalism (sort of like how Affirmative Action is exploited by the American right to win support for a racist agenda).

As for why I personally protest the uncles and aunties--1) it's dismaying to me and 2) think globally act locally.

Saurav, thanks for taking what I said seriously

Well, you made sense :)

Abhi also mentions the same argument in the "The Modi situation: a conspiracy theory"-post and the only point on which we differ is that he says its bad for the BJP and Modi. We'll have to wait for the answer on that one, but we do know that it has been good for the U.S. because every major Islamic publication has picked up the news.

I totally agree. What are the Muslim publications you're talking about?

As for Pallone, co-founder of the Caucus, I think he's sincere in his human rights interest,

Maybe, but i don't care about his personal opinions in evaluating this situation; this is bull$hit. He's totally placing his partisan and personal political interests above a human rights issue. It's one thing to defend Modi getting a visa, but another to take a stage with him. I don't know much about him, but he's completely lost whatever credibility he had in my eyes on these issues.

but I don't think holds true for everyone
No doubt. That's why I appreciated your comment. If anyone thinks that the U.S. State (at least right now and prbably in general) acts accountably or in the interests of people that it's systematically unaccountable to, then they only need to look at the recent appointment of Paul Wolfowitz to be disillusioned. or the numerous atrocities that the U.S. government has committed over the years. AGAIN--I'm not saying it's evil--just that it's a state and it's not predisposed to act in ways that benefit it's interests--you draw your own moral judgements.

is there any way you can get your hands on a copy of the transcripts?

Trying:) What i read in a news report was that he forgave, so to speak, the US government and the Americans (good pr move addressing NRIs and a congressman and in general since others are doing that work for him).

Saurav - your sincerity is palapable on this issue. Its a good exchange of ideas.

My friend, If VHP/BJP use the Kashmir or Uniform code issue to whip up passions. And passions are raised even in folks who do not subscribe to everything they say or do. Why? Guess what - It is because these issues exist, albiet they may exaggerate their impact. How would you feel as an American if bunch of Hindus got together here in the US and said we want our own civil code - maybe even our own tax code. It would not fly. And in india, its not muslim or christian people who really benefit from this but their narrow minded mullahs and leaders. Similarly on Kashmir issue, many on the left say - oh give them self determiniation. But why? What makes Kashmiris so special? As opposed to Sindhis, Punjabis, Bengalis who were also affected by the partition, not to speak of numerous other communities in south asia. Is it becuase they make more noise with the ammunition they get from across the border?

In the last 50 years since Independance, secularists led by Nehru took Hindus for granted. Taking the civil code specifically, Hindu laws were enacted which broke tradtional Hindu positions - and as a progressive Hindu agnostic - I support that. But what Nehru and company missed was also to review communal laws of other communities - infact they should have promoted one law for the whole nation. Infact the preamble of Indian constitution calls for Uniform Civil code and even the Supreme court on occasion has called on the govt. to move on this issue. Its not neecessary to impose unifrom law on all citizens at one time. But alteast the Indian govt. should move towards voluntary uniform code which citizen of every community could chose to be governed under.

The right in India does not have to create issues because many issues which they exploit already exist. Rest of it is politics. You won't change minds of millions of Hindus as long as they percieve double standards from the secularist community.

Anon,
As I understand even Hindus have the choice of following their own religious laws in India and so do the Christians and other minorities.
I think the key here is 'choice'. Government should not be legislating the private issues to begin with. However India has a good compromise as I understand. You have the choice of following either the secular common law or the religious laws.
Your analogy on Kashmir is not accurate. Kashmir is a disputed territory. There are numerous UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite and withdrawl of Indian/Pakistani forces from Pakistan and Indian occupied Kashmir.
I havnt noticed any similar UN Security Council resolutions on Sindh and Bengal.

Al Mujhaid - NO - There is no choice on civil laws in India. Every community has their own set of laws. That can't be a secular state!!! Its communal by very nature.

On Kashmir - Just because of UN resolution don't exist does not mean that a community cannot demand someting based on a precedent. The Kashmir demands came first and then the resolutions. Its disputed only because the British f'ed up. We already had one partition based on religion (very secular indeed!!!), now India cannot trade land so few mullahs can give us peace at gunpoint. Kashmiri demands are itself communal. They need to resettle the pandits, convert LOC into border (Pakistan can keep the grabbed territory in its possession) and become a normal Indian state like any other.

The BIGGEST mistake, in my opinion, that a lot of people make is to think that "Human Rights" is above politics. It may be for a few people but there are far more who treat "human rights" just as much politically as right of lifers...
BTW Rahul Mahajan's (empirenotes.org) radio commentary on the "right of lifer" is a must listen !!!

How would you feel as an American if bunch of Hindus got together here in the US and said we want our own civil code.

Ummm, we have pretty much the same thing, although lesser in scale and not as rooted in the founding law--it's called affirmative action. It's not just college admissions--federal contractors use it too to determine what companies to give business to. It's presented as a way to remediate historical wrongs by the country, but it ought to be looked at as a way to reduce current inequities.

And I support it, even though I don't benefit from it most of the time. It combats the advantages that the majority has. It also generates the same kind of objections about "minorities" getting special privileges. So do hate crime laws, actually.

Thank you for recognizing that I'm interested in engaging on this issue rather than bullshitting. I appreciate it.

Saurav - I think you are confusing affirmative action with uniform civil code. And I don't blame you since India's civil code is very unique. India does have an equivalent affirmative action system know as Reservation. Its even stronger than affirmative action in that it is more concrete in terms of admission to colleges and jobs in the public sector. In some states though it has become unmanageable where reservation accounts for almost 60% of intake while merit candidates account for only 40%. While i support it, I think it should be more economic need based and less caste based. I think with all the prejudince in India, it is needed for now. Civil code is all together a different concept.

The British used to rule Indian religious communities each with their own civil code. Civil code involves law with respect to birth, death, marriage, taxation etc. (as opposed to Criminal code). It was their way of divide and rule. (also contributed to the creation of Pakistan) When the British left, India continued with separate laws for various communities. This promotes communalism. Some people say why does it matter if different communities have different laws. Well can you imagine if New York had a different set of laws then Pennsylvania? (American may get some taste of it with respect same gender marriage laws real soon) For a just secular society it important that all citizens have one set of laws. I will give you an example from my own family. My mom's sister's husband ran away one day to another city (in India) leaving behind a wife and child with no support. To avoid detection and to alimony in the new city, he changed his religion to Islam. Well because of this the Hindu law no more applied to him and he could take advantage of this loophole. He married another woman without divorcing his first wife (in islam you are allowed 4 or 5 wives). Well guess what, the law could not touch him. I don't care if this lunatic became a muslim or a christian or embraced whatever faith - but the law should have applied equally to every community. I doubt if he seriously practices his new faith but he abused this Indian absurdity because it exists.

Secualrist politicians in India run away from this because it does not support their agenda - minorities will stop voting for them. And hence double standard on this and myraid of other issues - On Kashmir, On Ayodhya, etc.

(This is not to say that extremist on the right don't have their own issues. For example I am against catholicisation of Hinduism. Hinduism is beautiful because it allows people to practice their faith in whatever way it suits them as opposed to dogmatic ideology of many other religions)

Basically the fact that there is NO uniform Civil code in India is inherently communal and thats the BEST part about Indian past. !!!

The parsis came from Persia and stayed in India and kept their traditions, so did the Jews and Muslims. Inherent make up of India is communal. Communal is not necessarily a bad word.

India is the only country where minorities were not persecuted in past when Europe was harrasing Jews in unspeakable manner.

I think you are confusing affirmative action with uniform civil code.

You're right. I actually do that fairly often, although that's probably because the reserved seats and the civil code could both be part of a process of granting minority communities their rights. It's interesting to look at because it gives me a sense of what would happen if identity politics had taken over.

I think it should be more economic need based and less caste based.

Without knowing enough about Indian politics to evaluate it, I can see the plausibility of that argument; it pretty much echoes the same argument that a lot of people (including on the left) are making in the U.S. these days, if you switch "caste" with sexuality, gender, or other identity categories when they talk about where the American left should go.

In general, I get the sense from what people like you that I've been talking to say on blogs and my preexisting knowledge that a lot of the Hindu Right's strategy seems to be to use what are basically economic issues (education, nutrition, disaster relief, etc.) to coopt people into their movement to support their theocratic agenda. Yes?

Z,

You can read the relevant pages from Gujarati textbooks http://www.indcast.com/gujtexts/ in English and Gujarati.

Sorry, I mucked up the link:
http://www.indcast.com/gujtexts/

Law is typically not uniform across the US. Each state has its own constitution and its own laws. E.g., for a long time, Nevada had laws that made it much easier to get a divorce. and so the "Reno divorce" entered popular usage.

However, this is geographic in nature, ie.., when you move from California and establish residency in Nevada, Nevada divorce laws apply. What you're asking for in India's case is that the law depends on which community you belong to.

Let us remember that the varna (so-called caste) system prescribed the law based on which community the person belonged to. So, for instance, in Alberuni's time (1000 AD) it was legal for a Shudra to drink wine and eat meat, but not for a Brahmin. Why do we reject one system of law per community, but demand another? Really, the rights of a person and the protection of law should be independent of what community they belong to.

-Arun

Saurav,

You write:

"In general, I get the sense from what people like you that I've been talking to say on blogs and my preexisting knowledge that a lot of the Hindu Right's strategy seems to be to use what are basically economic issues (education, nutrition, disaster relief, etc.) to coopt people into their movement to support their theocratic agenda. Yes?"

-- You may be justified in suspecting the BJP/VHP etc. motives and goals. However, you are already making several mistakes in your quest to comprehend them.

I would say the biggest one is the "theocratic agenda", and close on its heels is "Hindu Right".

The big problem with virtually everyone is that they are attempting to describe India with European terms that don't really apply.

For example, in a theocracy, the source of legitimacy of the government is God. In a theocracy, humans cannot be the source of legislation; the only source of legislation is God, via the holy books. Now, you'll see that accusing the BJP of being theocratic is wholly misplaced.

-Arun

Saurav - Almost all movements/organizations/groups use social issues (education, disaster relief etc.) to gain traction in society. Thats as much true of the right as left. And what do you think the church does all over the world in Asia, Latin America and Africa?

However, I don't cary anyone's brief - right or left. Similarly millions of people who vote for BJP or the communist parties or other as may apply do not neccesarily believe whole hog in some party's or group's ideology. For example I would not want to live in a Hindu theocratic state. If that day came - I would personally join groups like CAG. But what people and groups like CAG do is that they don't give moderates like me the space to raise our voice against the more extremist elements of the right. Why? Because they show double standards when it applies to different communities.

I already talked about uniform civil code (I think you would have to live in India for sometime to understand what I am talking about). On Kashmir, communal secularist want to give them special rights compared to rest of the country. Another example - numerous Hindu temples in India are controlled by the state whereas minoritiy mosque and church properties in India are controlled by their own communities. There are numerous examples to illustrate that the state itself is communal and various parties themselves communal (even though they profess to be secular) and play vote bank politics.

Historical and modern wrongs must be corrected on all sides. Whether its done by Hindus or by anybody else. For example I support reservation for lower castes based on the fact that there has been historical injustice perpetuated on them by upper caste hindus. Similarly there is nothing wrong if Hindus want to get addressed some of the wrongs that were committed by others - albiet they should do it non violently (not the Modi way). Also Indian historical events of last few hundred years have left the Hindus insecure even though they form the majority in the country.

Unfortunately leftists like some members of CAG are blind to all this. Many of them are aethiests - so they cannot relate to majority community's angst or they chose to ignore it. Therefore people who see the double standards and inconsistency are forced to withdraw, occasionally or comprehensively support the demands emanating from the right. And this does no good to anybody.

Check out the following link. Use of "human rights" as a political tool by the US.
India will be slapped with sanctions ...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1060374.cms

anon and others have used the word "Hindu theocratic state" quite often. Would they care to explain what precisely they mean?

Do you mean that the Manusmriti would come back? Well, the BJP and RSS are anti-caste.

Do you mean a ban on cow-slaughter? Well, it is arguable, but even Humayun said that beef is not a fit food for the devout. There are cultural grounds for a ban on cow-slaughter, just as, e.g., California has a ban on horse-slaughter, and most western countries would punish the eating of dog-flesh.

Do you mean a Uniform Civil Code? How is that theocratic in any way? It is true having each community governed by its own laws is the traditional Indian/Hindu way, the unification of Hindu law under the Manusmriti was indeed an innovation of the British, otherwise there were region-wise and community-wise laws prior to the British even among the Hindus. Then you are already living in a "Hindu theocratic state" in the current state of affairs.

I.

Z #139 says
------
think that it was necessary to lie in order to

You think that's a lie? What do you have to say about this: In Modi's Gujarat, Hitler is a textbook hero
------

First of all the timelines are all wrong (Congress vs. Modi), as pointed by someone here. Second the book paints Hitler and Mussolini in a negative way (read the first page on the seventh chapter). Also see the exercises regarding chapter 6. How can any one conclude that this text is glorifying Nazism? In 1937, I am sure Germans felt that Hitler was one swell dude.

True it does not meet American standards of PC but it is not grossly historically inaccurate. Hitler did give pride to MOST germans and not perceived in the manner Saddam or Kim Il Sung was by their citizenry.

It is just a mediocre text meant for students to memorize good/bad points regarding everything so that they can be set suitable exam questions. You can find stuff like this in school texts (state board) all over India. Interestingly genocide closer to home (Bangladesh) is glossed over in the interests of preserving communal amity (no mention is made that hundreds of thousands of Bangladesh Hindus were massacred, thousands of temples were destroyed).

Bottom Line: the people who signed that letter made a big mistake regarding propagation of Nazism etc. by Modi's government.

Arun - From my posts you should be able to tell that i am FOR uniform civil code. I am also more in agreement with BJP on other issues such as Article 370 - Kashmir (i may have # wrong), Ayodhya etc.

However I do object to the concept of Hindu Rashtra. By thoerocratric state i mean, a state that governs its people based on laws/rules/traditions derived or based on a religious code - in this case Hindu. Although i do think that Hinduism does not have as tight a code as Christianity or Islam.

For example i would not want Tuesday as a holiday just because in many parts of India, that is the day when people go to Ganesh or Hanuman temples. Just as i would not want Friday as a holiday the way its in Saudi Arabia. Now Sunday is connected to the church but I guess it does make sense to change that since we are in a global economy and it has been decades if not centuries since Sunday has been a state holiday.

I also think Church and state should be separated. Therefore I would not want Supreme Court or Parliment sessions starting with a Hindu (or Islamic or Christian) prayer.

To contrast this position, I do support the right of Hindus to build a temple in Ayodhya (even if it cannot be proved that Ram was born at the same spot - it cannot be proved anyway). In this case it is matter of faith of millions to a very significant piece of land over objection from a minority for whom this land is not any different than thousands of other spots where mosques stand. I would support state intervention to end the legal tangle and bring this and other matters such as Kashi and Mathura to close.

So support some of the legitimate causes voiced by the right - Yes but keep the governance of the country at arms length from any religious code.

anon,

"Hindu Rashtra" does not imply any laws derived from any tradition or religion. One BJP writer wrote:

"We know well that India can never become a ‘Bauddha State’ or ‘Vaishnava State’ or ‘Shaiva State’, but it will remain Hindu Rashtra-the nation of the Hindus, the term Hindu meaning-”Aasindhu sindhu paryeta yasya bhaarata bhoomikaa, pitru bhoo punya bhooschaiva sa vai hinduriti smritah”-All those who adore and revere this Bharat as their holy land, as the land of their forefathers."

What are the specific points that are objectionable in the above definition? I know that via VHP, etc., the word "Hindu Rashtra" has acquired many connotations other than the straightforward meaning presented above. Is it the specific meaning above that is objectionable, or is it the other meanings that have come to be associated with the term that are objectionable?

BTW, you have every right to object, as this is a matter of opinion, not of fact. I just would like to understand your point of view.

-Arun

Arun

Well "Rashtra" means Nation. So literal translation would be Hindu Nation. I would not want India to be called a Hindu Nation more than I would like Saudi Arabia to be an Islamic nation or United States to be a Christian nation.

As far as holy land - well 20% of the population may consider some other land as holy land. Father land or motherland is ok but holiness is in eye of the beholder.

And why does it matter anyway? It is better to convert other theorocratic and quasi theorocratic states such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia into open democratic societies then attempt to give India some other characterization.

However I do believe that India is secular because it draws its tradition from Hinduism which lends itself to be accomodating to other belief systems.

However I do believe that India is secular because it draws its tradition from Hinduism which lends itself to be accomodating to other belief systems.

However Hinduism and Hindutva are 2 totally antithetical philosophies.
Hindutva is Islam in Hindu clothing!
A jehadi corruption of a 5000 year old religion.Modi and Advani are the saints of this militant movement, in preference to Tulsidas and Tukaram.

It is a greater threat to the Indian nation state than jehadi Islam.

All Modi loving, BJP supporting Hindus - you lose the right to claim the honourable legacy of Hinduism once you "convert" to Hindutva.
Yes it is mass conversion to Hindutva,and an indirect conversion to a form of Islam, yes Islam with a Hindu flavor.

George I can see you talking something but all I can hear is blah blah blah

Islam with a Hindu flavor

Hehe Haha Haha HAHAHAHA (mocking Ravana from Ramayan)

Amit: metaphorically, George is right. When Hindutva advocates wield prepackaged riots to burn down Pepsi warehouses on command, they resemble nothing more than Muslim findies.

People in Spain still call anyone from India region (South Asia) Hindu. !!!! Its an ethnic identity.

I am not making this up. Go back and look at the coverage of Spain's 3/11 train bombing coverage. Authorities were looking for a South Asian decent man and they refered to the person as "Hindu".

If I get a chance I will find the links and post it.

So like Arun explained, the definition of Hindu is ethnic. !!!

'Hindú' in Spain has more to do with their provincialism than anything else-- those labels were locked into Spanish centuries ago and never changed. And they couldn't use 'indio'-- it means mestizo, as in Mexico.

George/Manish - To the extent Modi's brand of politics is a counter reaction to communal secuarlism of India, I agree that Hindutava is not same as Hinduism. But to say that its some version of Islamic jihad, I can only say its very sophomoric opinion and ignorant as well. Mind you - I don't support the means and certainly not some of the objectives of people who follow the Hindutva creed.

Hindutva is a complex reaction to past few centuries of Indian history not limited to but including - arrival of islam (violently), mughal rule - particularly Auranzeb, the British rule and peculiar brand of Nehruvian secularism of the communal variety. That does not neccessarily make all its objectives noble or correct but if you recognize it as such, you have a half decent chance of influencing it. Further if you realize that Hindus feel insecure because of this heady mix of experience, then you know why they demand equal treatment of citizens all across India, you understand their frustation on Ayodhya issue. And on and on.

I wish people in India do not get excited and destroy property over a lame issue like denial of a visa. But If you have followed Indian politics, these kind of things are common on all sides of political spectrum. Modern Indian histroy is repleat with bandhs, property destruction and riots over variety of reasons including religious, political and economic.

First of all mestizos is used for are mix ancestry people who are 80% of Mexican population and NOT for the indigenous(or "Indian").
The word "indio" came because the first Spanish (and Italian such as Columbus) explorers when reached America looking for India (or Hindus) found this land and called them something similar to "ind.."
I hope people are atleast aware of the above fact that Hindu came before "Indian". (It is not like chicken and egg .. we know about this ...or at least we should)
Hindu word was a lot prior in the Spanish vocabulary then the exploration of new world which is only 4-500 year old.

Definition of mestizo is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizo

... mestizos is used for are mix ancestry people who are 80% of Mexican population and NOT for the indigenous(or "Indian").

Since its a historical mistake we need to CORRECT it and get it into our conscience that HINDU has always been an ethnic term until very recent history and later when the term is completely twisted into meaning something else.

Its a SHAME that people of the present day India have to call themselves by a name given by the occupiers ("Indian" as given by British occupiers)

Its like when school bully calls some other kid by a "name" the kid ACCEPTS it and is proud of it. How PATHETIC !!!!!

Where is our spirit of defiance !!!!

anon,

Hindutva is a complex reaction to past few centuries of Indian history not limited to but including - arrival of islam (violently), mughal rule - particularly Auranzeb, the British rule and peculiar brand of Nehruvian secularism of the communal variety

I understand your point here.But your logic leads to the slippery slope of justifying an extreme right wing violent political movement.

Nazism too was considered by Germans to be a reaction to the German humiliation in WW II, the unjust treaty of Versailles and French control of the Rhineland. We all know the road that led to.

I respect Hindu sentiments on Ayodhya etc. But once you descend to the level of violence, you lose the moral high ground .

Modern Indian histroy is repleat with bandhs, property destruction and riots over variety of reasons including religious, political and economic.

HINDU has always been an ethnic term

FYI, from the Pioneer:

Shias up in arms after US does a Modi on Sadiq

Subodh Ghildiyal/Siddharth Kalhans/ New Delhi/Lucknow

Shia community in India is up in arms against the treatment meted out to cleric Kalbe Sadiq by the United States of America. Conspiracy theories are back in the currency against the US and anti-US sentiment has resurfaced after the lull following the attack on Iraq.

A much-respected cleric, Sadiq was turned back from Chicago airport on March 17 and had to return to the United Kingdom. Sadiq was on an invitation from the Shia Assocation for a religious Moharram congregation. Kalbe Sadiq is on his annual three-month trip to Gulf-UK-US where he is welcomed to address the `majlis'.

This is not an isolated incident as the Shias are drawing a pattern after two more scholars were denied entry by the US in March, the month of Moharram. Maulana Safi Haider of Tanzimul Makatib Madrasa (group of 1000 madrasas) was barred entry earlier in March by the US. Another scholar Maulana Qazi Askari of Delhi was reportedly "humiliated and turned back" by the US in March.

The community leaders said the American Shia Association had registered its protest with the White House and demanded an apology from President Bush.

With the news trickling down, anti-US sentiments, too, have begun to spread in the city of Lucknow which has a five-lakh strong Shia community. Posters and pamphlets protesting the treatment meted out to the religious leader were distributed in the Shia-dominated localities of Kazmain, Pull Ghulam Hussain and Dargah Hazrat Abbas. It is believed that Maulana Kalbe Jawwad, another respected Shia cleric and Imam-e-Juma, may speak on the issue to the community in the Majlis after the Friday prayers in Imambara tomorrow. The `majlis', the community leader said, may see good attendance.

Speaking to The Pioneer, Kalbe Sibtain, Sadiq's son, said his father had a valid visa but was barred entry at the Chicago airport without any reason. "He told us that he had been quoted Article 235 (b) of some law of the country," he said.

Sadiq has been visiting the US for the last three decades as a preacher. "He has never had any problem. It has all changed after September 11, we think," said Sibtain, adding, "He was shocked but said we should not raise a hue and cry about it."

However, the issue has already acquired sharp anti-US overtones. Kalbe Jawwad blamed the ill-treatment meted out to Sadiq on US attempts to drive a wedge between Muslims in general (Sadiq is opposed to a separate Shia Board and is vice-president of All India Muslim Personal Law Board) and the Shia community in particular. He blamed the recent formation of a separate Shia Board as against the AIMPLB umbrella on the "evil" US designs. "The new board was formed on US directions and the people responsible are presently enjoying their stay in America," said Maulana Jawaad. Incidentally, Maulana Atthar, who heads the newly-formed Shia Board, and other office-bearers are on a tour to the US. "Those who are touring US for 30 years are denied entry and those who have never done so are given fresh visas. The gameplan is clear," said Jawwad.
Jawwad's line of argument has led to competitive anti-Americanism. Debunking the accusation that his father was an American stooge, Atthar's son Maulana Yasoob Abbas speculated that the root of the ill-treatment to Sadiq could lay in the anti-US stance he adopted during and after the attack on Iraq. "There were strong protests in Lucknow and entry of Americans to Shia monuments was barred. Sadiq had also participated in a pro-Saddam rally organised in Ramlila Maidan in Delhi in June 2004," he said, adding that this was the first Moharram after the protest rally.

George,
You may like names given by occupiers, you may like existing on mercy of someone,... I dont
Also I dont live in India.

You may like names given by occupiers

Huh? Are you implying that the fact that George has a Christian name, somehow makes him side with the Americans, or that he exists on their mercy? Obviously, You ran out of arguments.

D,
Dont jump to conclusion. Pls read before making assumptions about anyone.

I didnt mean George's name ...He was responding to my comment about "Indian" name given by the British. His tone was insulting so he got that in return.

If you would have read the thread you wouldnt have made an ass of your self like you just did.

George - I did not make the comment about Hindu being an ethnic term. But since you bring it up,here is the meaning from Merriam-Webster dictionary. Look at the 2nd meaning

Main Entry: 1Hin·du
Variant(s): also Hin·doo /'hin-(")dÌ/
Function: noun
Etymology: Persian, Hindu inhabitant of India, from Hind India
1 : an adherent of Hinduism
2 : a native or inhabitant of India

Assuming you are Indian, or Indian American, - I don't really care if you want to run away from your ethnicity.

Secondly, I did not note the historical context to justify violence. I did it so folks on this board - particularly ones who were not brought up in the heat and dust of India like some of us would have some context to what is going on in India. Most Hindus do follow the democratic law and process in India.

And whose fault is it that when injustice was perpetuated on them in last few centuries, that there was no democratic process. And most Hindus don't want to go back to some atavistic past but do want to correct some big wrongs which have been brought about by various actors in history.

As for the riots and bandhs, again i wanted to put it in context as some other poster presented this as evidence of jihadi mindset. Even the communists of Kerala have been known to carry out violent strikes and murders. Are they then jihadis?

Assuming you are Indian, or Indian American, - I don't really care if you want to run away from your ethnicity.

RC:
Hindu was a word coined by Persians, again "foreign " in origin.Get your facts right before shooting your mouth off and revealing yourself to be the ignorant jackass that you are.

From
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Hindu/id/22593

Hindu: Origin And Significance Of The Term Hindu
By Sri Swami Sivananda

Origin And Significance Of The Term Hindu

That part of the great Aryan race which migrated from Central Asia, through the mountain passes into India, settled first in the districts near the river Sindhu, now called the Indus, on the other side of the river. The Persians pronounced the word Sindhu as Hindu, and named their Aryan brethren Hindus. Hindu is only a corrupt form of Sindhu.

From encarta:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555715/Hinduism.html

Hindus themselves prefer to use the Sanskrit term sanātana dharma for their religious tradition. Sanātana dharma is often translated into English as “eternal tradition” or “eternal religion” but the translation of dharma as “tradition” or “religion” gives an extremely limited, even mistaken, sense of the word. Dharma has many meanings in Sanskrit, the sacred language of Hindu scripture, including “moral order,” “duty,” and “right action.”

Balinese, Javanese are followers of Sanatana Dharma. If you went to France, and saw the people there, and then called all the people who followed a religion like that of the French as French, you'd be committing the same error.

George,
You are a complete idiot and your response is so typical even before you wrote it, I knew what you would say. It is always the same.
All I said was the "Indian" was the name given by the British who ruled India. Like I said before you may love "Indian" title that doesnt change the fact that it was given by occupiers who were occupying India until only 60 years ago.

Now as for the word "Hindu" is concerned all I said was that it is known as an ethnic identity of a people in the world until it got twisted around.

As for the dictionary meaning of that word "Hindu" also noted in other comments.

Since you are an idiot and a bigot you will not get the fact that "sanatan dharma" is the religious aspect, any ethnic background person can follow that as religion anywhere in the world.

The whole central asian Aryan theory is bogus. Its been completely discredited. So I like better the definition Arun put in his comments. (well anything is better than name given by British. BTW on Indian Passport it still says "Bharat Ganrajya" ....)

RC, let's try to keep it civil. I don't think I am the only one getting annoyed by the tone of your comments. Argue like an intelligent gentleman with well-supported facts if you want to make a point. Otherwise I think I speak on behalf of other readers who find that you weaken your own aruments by a using a caustic tone that sounds more like a raving rant.

"...the fact that "sanatan dharma" is the religious aspect, any ethnic background person can follow that as religion anywhere in the world."

Yes, well, not to be obvious, but you're essentially proving his point (about Hinduism and ethnicity) with this statement, so.

"You may like names given by occupiers..."

Yes, and you seem to like the language given by occupiers, what's your point.

That said, in light of this weird post-colonial argument, when defining the meaning of "Hindu," aren't the Vedas a better source than Merriam-Webster? And, if Hindu is an ethnic term then what happens to Hindus in Thailand ? By that same argument, are all Christians Palestinian? Or, are you using the same definition for Hinduism & India that is used for Judaism & Israel? If so, speak on it, lay out your argument, because it's obvious we're all itching for a fight.

sd/George - First of all let me make it clear - that I don't CARE what one want to call himself/herself. Hindu, Indian, Indian Christian, Indian Hindu, Hindu Christian...blah blah blah. You get the drift.

The reason i put the the dictionary quote was to support the fact that hindu CAN connonotate as an individual from India. As the dictonary notes there can be 2 meanings - religious and ethnic. You seem to run away from one but like the other. BUT the bottom line is that no one can force you call yourself something you don't want. And I myself don't want Indain government to waste their time to ponder of this issue when we have issues like rank poverty, illiteracy, exploitation of children etc. Having said that I also belive that the Indian state should note and ACT on some of the legitimate aspiration of its significant section of Hindu (by religion) citizens on issues like Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura. They should also end state discrimimation and communal variety of secularism by bringing the uniform civil code. They should also call Pakistan's bluff on Kashmir. Until this happens, the forces which are demanding these things will not go away and India's economic and development progress will not be as fast as it should and can be.

Us Govt made Narendra Modi Hero. Do you know how many KASHMIRI PANDIT ( Hindu ) has left KASHMIR and lost their property and lives .THis is because of Terrorist attack by Pakistani Supporters Every body knows.How Parvez Mushraf will get visa in USA ? What about Afghanistan and Iraq How Us president should be allowed in other countries.
truth of principle should be applicable for every body. Few people put fire in COACH 6 and 56 person burned. Tragedy no words to mention. Do you know any country where minorities have attacked on majority ?

I.D. Joshi,
This is off topic but I can't resist educating you. In answer to your question, "Do you know any country where minorities have attacked on majority?" Just off-hand I can think of two. Iraq and Rawanda.

And South Africa. And the United States if I'm allowed to bring up things more than a century old.

Until this obnoxious variety of evangelism stops, folks like Modi (of both violent and non violent varieties) will continue to get support in India. Organizations like CAG need to start protesting against this sort of economic-cultural-religious genocide too!!!

Another article

US Evangelism Serious Threat to Indian Society

http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/000335.html

Modi was not convicted becuase at that time The state Governement was of BJP. It's sad modi has been let go of mass murder. Why he won election is another story, becuase gujrati people are close nit community and most of them are relgious. Most of the people who go and physically vote are aged people who are religious. Modi with Asaram Bapu presented an image that modi is a clean man when he is roaming around with a self called god like asaram Bapu. Wehreas asaram bapu himself is a conman and frud and mass hypnotiser. Asaram has built a big army of sewadaars who have been brainwahsed by him in his ashram. All of the sewadaars disciples of asaram can go and kill anyone if asaram said so because they are brainwashed. When modi is geting is getting a support from so many of the disciple of asaram who can do wahtever for thier guru , this is why modi is a mass murdred today and still out.

I think that Indians who celebrate an insult to their mother land are making a mistake. Hippy-liberal leftists are A*holes of the first water who think of themselves before they think of the nation always. JMO.

Yes, Kumar, and that's why you should've voted out Modi bai when you had a chance. He's an insult to the desh of the highest order.

Just an update. Modi was denied the visa to US in March this year. 4 months later, he was voted by the people of India as the best chief minister in the country in a nationwide opinion poll conducted by the India Today magazine. Last month , the BJP under Modi won a overwhelming majority in the vital Gujarat muncipalty elections , proving Modi's enduring popularity in that state.

Gujarat's economy enjoys a growth rate of 10%+.Industry is booming. Investments - both domestic and foreign are flowing in. Although Gujarat has only 3% of India's population , the state accounts for 25% of India's exports.

Modi is today more famous in India for his excellent administration.No Indian chief minister has executed administrative reforms or liberalised the economy the way Modi has.

Not a single case has been registred against Modi. His popularity in his state and among a significant section of India's population - notably the ambitious hindu middle classes , is undeniable.

Yes.Indeed Modi was denied a visa to US 10 months back.Anti-India Leftists hate him. Proud Americans with Indian sounding names hate him. Muslims hate him more than most. So what !

Modi remains the overwhelmingly popular and democratically elected leader of India's richest and most advanced state.

All of you who wrote against modi are stupid. Just look at his record. I grew up in gujarat. Have nothing against Muslims but we have been abused by many of them for too long. the riots were natural response of the people. There has been riots in gujarat many times before when modi was not around. so to blam him for the riots it totaly stupid. Did he do everything in his power to stop the riots. No he did not but that was the will of the people who put him in the office. US goverment should encourage his visit not deny him visa. He should be a natural allie to US. This was a mistake by the consular office in Delhi.