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Chief Minister Narendra Modi has been denied a diplomatic visa and his tourist/business visa already granted had been revoked as per the US Immigration and Nationality Act.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 Foreig