The Modi Shindig

I An Introduction

For those who aren't clued into it, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, was recently denied a visa (both diplomatic and tourist) to the US for delivering a speech to a congregation of Non Resident Indians. The ostensible reason for this was the indictment by the National Human Rights Commission of India of his participation in the Gujarat riots of 2001, though the Indian press has been quick to offer many conspiracy theories about the "real reason" behind the denial of the visa. The Hindu nationalist elements in India have gone to town about the perceived "insult" to Indian pride, while the rabid segment of secular-liberal civil society can scarcely hide their glee at what they regard as just desert for Modi. Like most other political situations which create ideological faultlines (see Terry Schiavo's case in the US, the screening of Jerry Springer - The Musical on national TV in the UK etc.), the extremist nature of discourse surrounding the Modi visa denial tends to overshadow the less divisive aspects of the matter, aspects which are probably as relevant as the broader ideological debate.

This post, therefore, is an attempt to explain why I'm slightly more agnostic about taking pleasure from Modi's visa denial than some extremist liberals. I propose to look at this from two points of view - (i) the arbitrariness of the decision to deny Modi a visa (ii) the seeming insignificance of the matter from the US' perspective.

II Spot the odd one out

In the recent past, Pervez Musharraf, Chandrika Kumaratunga and Gerry Adams have all been granted visas to visit the USA. President Musharraf has been severely criticised by several international organisations for suppressing democracy in Pakistan (doh) and also for promoting religious discrimination in that country (or continuing to tolerate it); Chandrika Kumaratunga has been accused of the most horrendous human rights atrocities being committed against suspected Tamil militants in custody in Sri Lankan jails and Gerry Adams we all know about. Like Modi, none of these persons have been convicted for the commission of any of these offences, and yet all of them have been accused by some human rights organisation. Clearly then, the issue is not one of meeting certain criteria, because the criteria laid down in the International Religious Freedom Act applies to all of them. This arbitrariness also seems to be reflected in the recent denial of permission to Ram Guha for entry into the US.

However, regardless of what the actual reason for refusing Modi a visa is, every State has the right to determine who it allows onto its territory, and who it should grant a visa to. Few legal procedures exist to allow for review of these sorts of decisions, and very rarely is much political capital expended in seeking to right a perceived wrong which arises from decisions of this nature. There isn't much India can do to protest the US' decision, and arguably there are more important aspects to Indo-US relations to sort out than this. To talk of just desert for Modi, though, is to take a long leap - we have no idea of knowing why Modi was denied a visa, and given the sort of people who have been granted the visa, it's unclear why a random and arbitrary denial of a visa should be taken as a means of vindication in lieu of a properly adjudicated process of justice delivery (unless of course mere denial of a visa is regarded as sufficient punishment for the acts Modi is alleged to have committed). This is why I believe that there's little to rejoice in Modi's denial of a visa - it has little to do with providing justice to the victims of Gujarat, it is unlikely to make Modi feel repentant for what he's been accused of doing(or provide sufficient punishment for it) and it has just provided the Hindu Right with a cause to revive itself around.

III They Don't Really Care About Us

The core of the right-wing argument protesting the denial of Modi's visa is to claim it to be a sign of "disrespect" towards India. This may well be the case, but even if it is, it is not just a problem with the US government's stance towards India, but a reflection of the general lack of interest about Indian affairs in American society. Preliminary support for this can be gathered from the attention given to this denial by the American media - the NY Times carries a 129 word report on column A3 of page 4 of the edition of 19 March, the Washington Post does slightly better by giving it newspace on page A21 of the edition of the 19th, and A18 of the 20th. Other than the Indian community in the US (which seems divided on the propriety of the denial of the visa), few Americans are aware of the whole incident. By raising the "national insult" flag, the Hindu Right is drawing attention away from the important lesson which lies behind the denial of a visa to Modi - that for the US government, as well as for members of civil society, it doesn't matter if this constitutes a national insult or not. In such a situation, it is quite pointless to agitate on the basis of the disrespect being caused by the denial of the visa because it is not likely to result in Modi obtaining a visa (since the US government has no interest in doing so), pressurising the Indian government is unlikely to have any results (because issuing of visas is a purely internal matter for any State in the world) and the feelings of offended Indians don't count for much internationally.

IV The Way Forward

What this incident should be utilised for, therefore, is to introspect about why it is that India has such low presence in the context of the US' internal politics. Why is it that certain leaders would not be denied a visa into the US, but certain Indian leaders would? Why don't Americans care about this apparent discrimination? Why is the supposedly powerful and influential Indian lobby in the US unable to bring about a change in the perception of India there? Ideology-based arguments merely obfuscate this most central concern which arises from the whole visa denial incident.