June 14, 2013
US commission on international religious freedom, whose recommendation to the state department, along with pressure from liberal-left Indians and Indian-Americans, has resulted in the continued ban on Modi visiting US.
June 14, 2013
US commission on international religious freedom, whose recommendation to the state department, along with pressure from liberal-left Indians and Indian-Americans, has resulted in the continued ban on Modi visiting US.
WASHINGTON: A US lawmaker who visited Gujarat earlier this year and met chief minister Narendra Modi boldly batted for the Washington-proscribed BJP leader at a congressional hearing, forcing his critics to concede that revocation of his US visa may by the state department may have to be reconsidered if he were to become the prime minister.
Cynthia Lummis, a Republican congresswomen from Wyoming, was part of a three-member delegation that met with Modi during a ten-stop visit to India earlier this year. On Thursday, Lummis took up the case of the man she said is "likely to become a candidate for prime minister," asking a panel of experts during a hearing on religious freedom on what basis he was being denied a US visa.
"The courts in India have not found him to be guilty of anything, in spite of numerous court proceedings in India regarding his involvement in those activities," Lummis said, referring to the 2002 Gujarat riots. "In spite of almost a decade of litigation against Mr Modi, he has never been found guilty of any wrongdoing. Therefore, I have some concerns about the application of a continuing denial to him of a visa to the United States."
Lummis was clearly driven by an economic agenda and US stakes in Gujarat's growth, pointing out that there is a "gigantic Ford Motor Company manufacturing facility … an enormous Tata vehicle assembly facility in the state, and numerous companies moving in because of the economic climate and the elevation of the quality of life in terms of employment." Gujarat, she said, is the most receptive province in all of India to raising the standard of living over the last decade, and in the light of that "are we correct to continue to deny a specific individual in the largest democracy in the world a visa to the United States?"
However, the economic argument did not impress two of the panelists who took the question; both placed human rights over material progress. "As someone who believes very passionately that accountability is part of how we advance and embed human rights globally as a standard to which all countries need to live up to, I am reluctant to look at progress under minister Modi in the economic sphere and say that that progress sort of covers or excuses very grave concerns and shortcomings as they relate to human rights," said Katrina Lantos Swett, chair, US commission on international religious freedom (USCIRF), whose recommendation to the state department, along with pressure from liberal-left Indians and Indian-Americans, has resulted in the continued ban on Modi visiting US.
Swett, however, conceded that "if he (Modi) were to become the head of state, that becomes a different situation."
"You have to deal with that. Each nation, each sovereign nation, has the right to choose their own head of state. We know that, for example, in Iran, you know, they've elected as president somebody that we take a rather dim view of in this country for two terms. But you have to, you know, sort of contend with that reality, should it come to pass," she said.
She was supported by Georgetown University's Thomas Farr, who said in the tension between religious freedom and American interests, the least Washington could do was deny Modi a visa to visit US to make its point about human rights.
However, he too conceded that "if this guy is going to be the prime minister of India, that's something we have to pay very close attention to" besides weighing US economic interests in Gujarat.
Courtesy: TOI
