Reading the comments following my post yesterday on Modi, as well as following the comments on other websites, I have decided to do a follow up post on the situation so that I may forward a theory. Several of you think of it as a “snub against India” the way the U.S. seemingly bipassed normal channels in order to issue this censure of Modi. The word “hypocrisy” has also been thrown around quite liberally. Some of you ask, why deny Modi but not the President of China or the heads of states of other countries that have been known to commit religious or human rights violations? Let us look at the political ramifications of what happened yesterday by assuming for a moment that the U.S. and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (or his representative) HAD discussed the issue PRIOR to the Modi decision and that this WASN’T a surprise at all but a carefully planned political bushwhack.
Let’s first look at this article in Rediff:
Though sources close to the Gujarat government in Gandhinagar and the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership in New Delhi indicated to rediff.com correspondents that the decision to deny Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi a visa to visit the United States was taken at the embassy level in New Delhi, without consultation with the State Department in Washington, DC, senior Bush administration officials have told rediff.com that this is not correct.
The officials said the decision to deny Modi a visa was taken at the highest levels and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was apprised every step of the way during her travels in Asia.
“She is the Secretary of State,” the officials said, “and she knows all about what is going on that is important at the State Department.”
The officials acknowledged there were security concerns over the visit because of the large protests that were being organised and also because some of the cities where Modi was slated to speak had not been aware what a controversial figure he was and may not have been taking the necessary security precautions in terms of assigning police personnel and taking other preventive measures.
Okay, so we have established that this was probably a high level decision on the U.S. side. If the U.S. wants to be seen around the world (especially in the eyes of Muslims) as fair and just, and not always hypocritical, then they have to start being consistent in their policy toward human rights violators. The decision to deny Modi’s visa occurred in the same week that Bush’s favorite adviser, Karen Hughes, was promoted to a position in the State Department whose sole purpose is to improve the image of America in the Muslim world. I respect the political minds in the White House too much to think that this is a mere coincidence. By punishing Modi, who violated the rights of Muslims, this gives Hughes new material to work with. Keep in mind also that Rice was just in India for direct talks with the Prime Minister:
Maintaining that the United States has a “very good relationship” with India, the White House has said that President George W Bush would welcome Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to America, but no date has been fixed yet.
“We don’t have any announcement to make at this point, but we have a very good relationship with India. The President has a very good relationship with Prime Minister Singh. And we have continued to work to strengthen that relationship,” White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said on Thursday.
The letter that was most likely responsible for bringing the Modi situation to Rice’s attention was this one sent by Congressman Joe Pitts. Note that it is dated March 7th. That is a full week before Rice’s trip to India. She had her embassy announce the decision upon leaving India however, when there would no longer be a possibility of it distracting from her other important talks. WHAT IF her and Singh DID discuss Modi and came to an understanding that it would be for the best to deny his visa? What would be the result of such a collaboration?
Modi was seen as a very senior figure in the BJP party. Prime Minister Singh belongs to the Congress Party of course. You do the math. By the U.S. censuring Modi in this way, his wings have been permanently clipped. I would think it a forgone conclusion that his OWN party will no longer allow him to rise within their ranks despite their current, vociferous protests. He has completely lost international credibility. The Congress government benefits in a second way. By launching the weakest of “official protests” they are seen to be standing up for Mother India, thereby looking better in the eyes of Indian voters. Rediff reports the Prime Minister describing this as a matter of great concern:
“I share the concern expressed in this matter on all sides of the House. When I came to know of the denial of visa to Shri Modi yesterday (Friday), I immediately instructed our external affairs minister to call the US ambassador and explain we are greatly concerned and we greatly regret the decision,” Dr Singh said. The US decision lacks senitivity and courtesy, he added.
“The American government has been informed that while we respect their sovereign right to grant and refuse visa to any person, we do not believe it is appropriate to use allegations or anything less than due legal process to make a subjective judgement,” the prime minister said.
He made it clear that his government was not treating the issue in a partisan manner but as a matter of concern over a point of principle.
“I think the government’s prompt and firm response shows our stand in this matter,” Dr Singh added.
Methinks the Prime Minister doth protest too much.
Finally, consider the fact that what makes Modi different than other world leaders, to whom the U.S. has NOT denied entry, is that Modi is not a Head of State. You should be allowed (to certain extents of course) to be a hypocrite when dealing with a Head of State because your interaction with them can lead toward a change in their policy and a drive toward democracy. That is why the U.S. deals with the leaders of corrupt regimes at all. It is not because they are always hypocrites, but because if one wants to affect change through diplomatic means (instead of always by war) you have to play with the cards you are dealt. This move just assured that Modi was sent to the bottom of the deck and we’ll never have to deal with him.
In conclusion I propose that this wasn’t a snub against India or handled in the wrong way, but rather a carefully orchestrated political dance that benefited all the players except Modi and the BJP.
