Donøt come into my parlour: US
The Modi visa episode plunged leader writers into a primordial confusion.
You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
There is nothing like a completely unexpected and, on the whole, trivial
event to throw leader writers into utter bewilderment. Something happens
somewhere, the editor decides "we must carry something", a quick exchange
of views takes place, the line is agreed upon, and lo! the confusion is
confected, to be tapped out in quick time. When a certain amount of
national pride is also involved, the results can be truly embarrassing.
The Modi Visa Episode is as perfect an example of this as any. As they say
in the US, it caught the leader writers on the hop. The overall refrain -
barring in the Hindu, about which more in a moment - was that the US was
applying double standards, which of course it was. That, if I may remind
everyone, is the purpose of discretion: it allows its wielders to adopt even
quadruple standards.
The Hindu, which tends to oscillate between dully stodgy and intemperate
language, erred on the side of the latter this time. It titled its leader
"A Slap in Mr Modi`s Face" and went on from there, defending the US decision
even more than the US spokesman in Delhi had done. "It is intriguing why
Mr. Modi chose to ask for a diplomatic visa for a trip that was ostensibly
to address the Asian-American Hotel Owners` Association and meet business
leaders. Was he apprehending something so untoward that the protection of
a diplomatic visa would come in handy?" A little checking would have
informed it that almost all elected officials from India travel on a
diplomatic visa. It is a courtesy extended by the host country, never mind
the purpose. The US had clarified that Mr Modi`s visit was for a purpose
that did not "qualify for a diplomatic visa."
But worse was to come. "In revoking the business/tourist visa, Washington
has been even more forthright, arguing that any foreign government
official who was responsible or had "directly carried out, at any time,
particular severe violations of religious freedom" was ineligible to enter
the US." This was a bit rich considering the paper has been excoriating
the US for doing precisely the same thing. "The US Government has formally
given international recognition to Mr. Modi`s responsibility in the post-Godhra
genocide."
Then it got another fact wrong. It said "What helped matters was the US
State Department`s International Religious Freedom Report, which was
released on September 15, 2004." Actually, the decision was based on the
Indian NHRC report. And then it got yet another thing wrong. It said this
incident would help the dissidents in Gujarat and that "the Gujarat Chief
Minister could be in for a long, hard summer." Actually, the reverse has
happened. The Indian Express called its leader " Modi, martyr!" and made
somewhat more sensible points but it was clear that the US decision had got its
nationalist goat too. "The US government accomplished a marvellous feat on
Friday," it wrote. "In the process, it allowed Modi not only to affect the
genuine outrage of the persecuted but also to legitimately divert the
spotlight from his own earned notoriety to US hypocrisies on issues of religious
freedom."
It then listed a few such US hypocrisies and added, "banning and
proscribing always ends up by lending more power to the politics of those
who are banned and proscribed. If the purpose was to register its censure
of Modi`s brand of hate politics, which propelled his government`s
criminal abdication during the communal violence of 2002, the US would
have done far better to let Modi travel to the country and then face
protest groups and demonstrations of the kind that so embarrassingly
greeted him in the UK not very long ago, instead of gifting him this
opportunity to pose as martyr." There, at least, the paper got it right.
The Telegraph got it most right, so to speak. "Haters of Mr Narendra Mod
will find an occasion to rejoice. Congenital critics of the US government
are suddenly applauding one of its decisions." Then it made a telling
point: "It is necessary to separate the moral outrage against Mr Modi and
the moral approval of the US government`s decision." The fact is that " Mr
Modi, for good or for bad, is an elected chief minister of an Indian state...
The US government chose to ignore the verdict of Indian democracy. Nobody
demands that the US government should respect Mr Modi asa person.
The elected office Mr Modi holds is worthy of respect. Is thattoo much to
expect from holier-than-thou Uncle Sam?"
Feedback on this column may be sent to editor@thehoot.org
Subscribe To The Newsletter