Visa Rejected
Much is being said about denying Narendra Modi a visa to visit America. As Yashwant Sinha rightly says, granting a visa is a sovereign right of any nation but the way it was handled smacked of hypocrisy. Narendra Modi, the much-maligned chief minister of Gujarat when the post-Godra riots occurred (ever notice how everyone talks about post-Godra when in fact, what occurred at Godra was equally heinous). Make no mistake, I too believe that Narendra Modi is a crackpot and doesn’t deserve any sympathy. But at the same time, he is a democratically elected chief minister of one of India’s prosperous states. By denying him a visa, America dusted off the cobwebs from an archaic law that states – “any government official who was responsible for or directly carried out at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, ineligible for a visa“. That law is as open to interpretation as India’s aspirations to call itself a secular nation. Of course, Saudis and other Islamic heads of states regularly visit America for no apparent reason in spite of blatant religious intolerance in their countries. Shouldn’t they be routinely denied visas too?
America in fact is making a political statement by ignoring Indian sentiments. They had earlier not commented on the Gujarat riots — an internal matter. But this is a shift in attitude. Most of Indians do not believe in Narendra Modi but I will not deny him the right to travel anywhere he wishes. Was Salman Rushdie denied entry because of his so-called sacrilegious book? Protest all you want wherever he goes, stage a dharna at his meetings, write editorials criticizing his actions but making India feel inadequate for electing such a leader by denying him a visit doesn’t befit a global power. Surely security couldn’t be an issue; after all many controversial leaders visit America all the time. Christian evangelicals twist the rules to obtain a visa to convert Indians; surely that is a greater problem. Victory for pluralism, BS! It should be called minority appeasement.
If you read the letter that is supposed to have caused a change in policy, it is an example of blatant interference and judgment by an external entity. If we begin to point out the inadequacies in American congressmen beginning from immoral indulgence that is against “Indian culture” and other war crimes in Islamic countries, then it wouldn’t be possible for any American lawmaker to visit India. But I doubt India has the guts; afterall they have invited the perpetrator of Kargil to watch a silly cricket match and is giving his mom royal treatment.
So America, stop judging us (although we deserve it). If you want to deny Modi a visa, deny him on valid grounds (are any grounds valid?), not on the accusation of “religious intolerance”. That is for us to decide. But I can’t stop you from doing whatever you please, can I? I hope I can rant or will my visa be revoked too?
PS. It is a free-for-all at Sepia Mutiny but The Acorn is restrained in its commentary. Saurav rightly observes that the US is clear in its choices for appeasement.


Pingback: varnam
Pingback: Winds of Change.NET