Hindu Vivek Kendra
«« Back

Would America Apologise to India and Modi Especially?

Author: Dr. O. P. Sudrania
Publication: Gwashingtoncom.blogspot.in
Date: June 3, 2014
URL:   http://gwashingtoncom.blogspot.in/2014/06/would-america-apologise-to-india-and.html

"Modi, a pariah till yesterday is eulogised as Ronald Regan or Margaret Thatcher incarnate by them today, hypochondria or hypocrisy - rex non potest piccare or the winner takes it all." 
Trying their best to present (coincidental or intentional) in as best way as could be including the "Saffron colour" as shown in the picture. Could it be better if these letters are also saffronised?
 Narendra Modi has been sworn in as Prime Minister of India on 26 May 2014 and there is intense lobbying from US for him to visit US ever since his coronation. President Barak Hossain Obama has gone overboard to lure Modi to pay a diplomatic visit at his earliest and he made no issue for his visa ban.

Modi, a pariah till yesterday is eulogised as Ronald Regan or Margaret Thatcher incarnate by them today - rex non potest piccare or the winner takes it all. 

Interesting US Resolutions

In a NYT India Ink Blog, By ZAHIR JANMOHAMED dated December 5, 2013 describes candidly the episode of visa ban against Modi briefly and it makes a good recollection of the past events Vis a Vis the character of US Lawmakers as their reliability on official conduct but it also doesn't give or confer the same to its Indian counterparts by priory. We know our own stuff but it becomes yet more relevant to keep a vigil across or beyond the borders.

Some Relevant but Repulsive Extracts 

It is pertinent to review few interesting extracts form above column in NYT.

1. But it came about from a highly unusual coalition made up of Indian-born (Muslims and 'Secular' venal Hindus) activists, evangelical Christians, Jewish leaders and Republican members of Congress concerned about religious freedom around the globe.
2. I ( ZAHIR JANMOHAMED, Muslim from Ahmedabad, Gujarat) had a front-row seat to these events as they unfolded. I worked in Washington. D.C., from 2003 to 2011, mostly at Amnesty International and in the United States Congress, and I was a part of the campaign to deny Mr. Modi a visa.
3. In 1996, Nina Shea, the director of the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, organized a summit sponsored by the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group that represents 42,000 Evangelical Churches (pun added - root cause of problem and anti Hindu organisation engaged in predatory religious conversions).
4. The timing was perfect.
5. Soon after the passage of the law, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, a government-funded agency, was created (The most controversial NGO?). Many of the initial commissioners had strong evangelical leanings, but when Felice D. Gaer, the director of the American Jewish Committee’s human rights program, was selected as a commissioner in 2001, she decided to widen the panel’s scope to other religions.

“I wanted to turn this around, to make our focus broader,” Ms. Gaer said in an interview. This chance came in February 2002 when she learned about the riots in Gujarat, India. “We learned about the riots in real time...Ms. Gaer said.
Ms. Gaer tried to arrange an official commission trip to India to survey the damage caused by the 2002 riots but was denied permission to enter India (quite rightly so).
Instead, the commission decided to hold a hearing in Washington in June 2002. Ms. Gaer was “shocked” by the findings at the hearing. “I can’t forget what I heard that day,” Ms. Gaer said (is she still?).
6. In the fall of 2002, an Indian-born, Washington-based evangelical Christian named John Prabhudoss led a delegation to riot-affected Ahmedabad that included two Republican congressmen, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Mr. Wolf. Another person on the trip was Raju Rajagopal (venal secular), an Indian-born retired health professional based in Berkeley, Calif.
7. Using the venal secular agent: “It was unimaginable what we saw in Gujarat,” Mr. Rajagopal said. “People in Gujarat told us that Indian Americans were sending loads of money to groups like the R.S.S. and the V.H.P.” that, he argued, had a role in fueling the violence, Mr. Rajagopal said. He was referring to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, two Hindu nationalist groups founded in 1925 and 1964, respectively (most innocuous Hindu organisations compared to Abrahamic crusaders and jihadis).
8. Misuse and abuse of Human Right groups to malign Hindus/Modi under the pretence of pseudo sympathy for Muslims but the angst of Christian groups lie in their slowing of religious market in conversions).
9. Venal Rajgopal's slavish pursuit:
Soon after the release of the report, Silicon Valley companies with large numbers of Indian-American employees promised to either stop or suspend donor matching programs with the fund.
“It was a tremendous victory and it gave us momentum to keep fighting,” Mr. Rajagopal said.
The report also did something else — it created a network of activists across the United States who could be quickly mobilized when they learned of Mr. Modi’s planned visit to the country in 2005.
10. Soon after Mr. Modi’s United States visit was announced, 41 South Asian groups across the country came together to form the Coalition Against Genocide (with Teesta Setalvad, Fr. Cedric Prakash, Angana Chatterji, Arundhati Roy and few other Indian Muslims there). On Feb. 24, 2005, a letter organized by the group was signed by over 100 professors and sent to the hotel association, asking them to rescind Mr. Modi’s invitation. Another pressure group flooded Mr. Matthews with letters.
On March 8, 2005, Mr. Matthews backed out of the conference for “scheduling reasons.” On March 15, Amnesty International said it had written a letter to American Express asking it to withdraw its sponsorship of the conference.
Mr. Prabhudoss focused on Washington. “If this was going to work, we had to make a legal and not a political argument as to why the United States should deny a visa to Modi,” he said. He zeroed in on the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which stipulates that no person who has violated religious freedom could enter the country.   
11. If the above narrative has conveyed the US stratagem enough, then kindly go to the link for full description, since the rest is all a history now.

Congressman Frank Wolf speaking at a campaign rally in Springfield, Virginia, on Aug. 17, 2012. Mr. Wolf was the author of the International Religious Freedom Act, which served as the basis to deny Narendra Modi a United States visa.
Final US Visa Denial Drama
On March 16, 2005, House Resolution 160 was introduced in Congress, condemning Mr. Modi “for his actions to incite religious persecution.” On March 18, the State Department denied Mr. Modi a visa. Three days later, the United States ambassador to India, David C. Mulford, said, “This decision applies to Mr. Narendra Modi only. It is based on the fact that, as head of the state government in Gujarat between February 2002 and May 2002, he was responsible for the performance of state institutions at that time.”
Further Affirmation Visa Denial
House Resolution 417 reaffirms the denial of Modi’s visa, but a new  Congressional Research Service report indicates that a head of state is automatically eligible for a A-1 diplomatic visa and welcome to apply. Modi’s ban may soon be over, but the history behind the ban illuminates the inconsistencies and tensions of religious freedom as a foreign policy objective, a subject discussed at length elsewhere on the site (shortcut to save gross humiliation).
Modi Is Now Baptised, Not Untouchable?

Not quite but US is "deBaptised" seemingly as business strategic partnership has Baptised Modi and he is now no more blasphemous. If one needs to learn selfishness and deceit, they must peruse this episode of US visa ban and its follow up USA's behavior concerning the Modi's rise as PM of India and the U-turn taken by the entire Western nations. Muslims have yet to wake up and it is doubtful if they ever will, engrossed too much in their bigotry and Pavlovian reflex reaction.   
How Credible Are US Lawmakers?
Obama quietly reverses Hillary’s ‘get Modi’ policy, asserts M D Nalapat.

 "Hillary Clinton likes to operate through NGOs, which are given funding through indirect channels, and which target individuals and countries seen as less than respectful to her views on foreign and domestic policy in the target countries," a retired US official now based in Atlanta said. He claimed that "rather than US NGOs, (the former) Secretary of State Clinton favoured operating through organisations based in the Netherlands, Denmark and the Scandinavian countries, especially Norway" as these were outside the radar of big power politics. These NGOs were active in the agitation against the Russian nuclear power plant at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu, with "funding coming mainly from a religious organisation based in Europe that has close links with France".

Declare USCRIF and USIRFA 1998 Illegal and Blasphemous
USCIRF and USIRFA are both akin to Anti Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan created during the regime of erstwhile Pakistan Prez Zial-ul Haq that is also operative in certain other nations where such laws are in vogue with Catholic bias under influence of Vatican and other religious institutional edicts.

USA had detached its State from the Church (meaning religion - a myopic view) by their First Amendment in Constitution. Now in 1996-98 during the Clinton's Presidency, to obvert the First Amendment, US created this NGO - UECIRF and its IRFA 1998. This is treachery and abuse of modern jurisprudence. This is illegal, inhuman and unethical on all counts and must be condemned at all international fora in the interest of global peace and harmony.
«« Back
  Search Articles
  Special Annoucements