Visa Rejected
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