This isn't about Modi!

Diplomacy demands sensitivity to each others laws as codified by a recognised Constitution, writes Binay Kumar.

Not even a week has passed since we expressed optimism in this column on the eve of Condoleezza Rice's visit to New Delhi that things were at last looking up for India's checkered relationship with America. We had hoped that her stewardship of the State Department would finally herald new beginnings for Indo-US relations long dogged by mutual distrust and acrimony.

Could I have been more wrong? Not really. Even before the euphoria over her visit died down, the US Embassy in India announced that the application for grant of a diplomatic visa to the current Chief Minister of Gujarat had been denied by the American Government and (as if that was not enough) they had also chosen to revoke a business visa that was already issued to him.

I am not even going to name the individual in the eye of the storm. That the Chief Minister in question happens to be Narendra Modi is only incidental to our discussion. It is very important that we separate the private individual and the politician from the constitutional authority (duly elected by a democratic process of law) which has been shown disrespect and unprecedented discourtesy at the hands of a friendly nation with whom India maintains diplomatic ties.

This issue is not about Narendra Modi and his record as a politician. My regret is that the American action has forced many of us who are his fiercest critics otherwise to take a position which is seen as rallying behind Modi. This confusion has also led to the slipshod response of the Indian government which should have been actually incensed at this unfriendly act. Usual conduct of diplomatic relations between two civilized states demands that India's protest should have been registered by using the strongest possible words and matching actions to condemn the American decision.

Nothing of the sort happened. A prime minister whose undoubted decency can only be matched by the lack of his authority over the government that he presides informs the Parliament that his government had pressed Washington to reconsider the matter. Two days later he is informed of Washington's intransigence which he has no choice but to publicly regret in the feeblest of protest ever registered in the history of diplomacy. In fact, it shames us no end to read in a section of the press that "apparently Sonia Gandhi and her Government were happy at the decision".

The American action is wrong on several counts. First of all, a diplomatic visa is not issued to a private individual; it is a reciprocal courtesy enjoyed by countries who maintain diplomatic relations. Modi did not apply in his individual capacity as a RSS pracharak or a BJP activist. The visa would have been issued to a Chief Minister whose authority in the state apparatus is the same that any Governor enjoys in a US State.

Secondly, diplomacy demands sensitivity to each others laws as codified/sanctified by a recognized constitution. In this case, Modi's Chief Ministership is not at the pleasure of a political party. He enjoys the mandate of the people and his position is duly sanctified by India's constitution. Denial of a visa to him is not an indictment of his record but a slur on India's political process which in terms of maturity doesn't need any foreign endorsement.

Thirdly, this also smacks of interference in the internal affairs of a so-called friendly state namely India. Manmohan Singh stopped short of calling it such but his statement to the Rajya Sabha alluded to the same when he said, "while we respect their sovereign right to grant or refuse visas to any person, we do not believe that it is appropriate to use allegations or anything less than due process to make a subjective judgment to question a constitutional authority in India".

Fourthly, the Modi episode has once again demonstrated American penchant for double standards in the conduct of foreign policy. Washington is not as concerned about religious freedoms in other countries, including Iraq, and one of its closest allies, Saudi Arabia, which denies its people religious freedom as a matter of course and public policy.

And finally this sets a very dangerous precedent. Theoretically speaking, today's Chief Minister in Gujarat can be tomorrow's India's Prime Minister. If that is what the people of India in their wisdom decide, who on earth has the right to question their judgment. Surely, not a foreign power, friendly or otherwise.

If you look at the charge being leveled against him by the US Administration to deny the visa, many elected officials from many western democracies including the United States may not fare better than Modi because the use of religion as a means of electoral vote bank politics is hardly Modi's monopoly. The idea that sizable electoral gains can be had with a prayer here and a biblical quotation there is not a fantasy; it was the bulwark of many electoral campaigns which brought rich dividends. As one senior Indian citizen told me the other day, people who live in glass houses do not throw stones at others.

This is how BBC's website profiles Modi, "Few politicians have done so much to polarise Indian public opinion in recent years as Gujarat's Chief Minister Narendra Modi." Fair enough…who all can you think of from Western democracies whose claims to fame rest purely on their ability to polarize the electorate? Surely, India can not use this to deny visas to them for it would jeopardize many forthcoming state visits!

Above all, the American decision lacks finesse because it would only help achieve for Modi 'martyrdom' which he would never have got in India's secular polity. I have always had words of admiration for the British when it comes to diplomacy (and democracy). Not too long ago they were faced with a similar dilemma when Modi visited London in the August of 2003, close on the heels of the Gujarat riots.

Pressed to deny him entry into the United Kingdom, this is what the British Government spokesman had to say, "We do understand the concerns expressed but there were no appropriate grounds to refuse Mr Modi a visa." Perhaps Mr Blair can teach the Americans a lesson or two!