The Criminal as Victim

We seem to be living in times of the unlikely victim. A person who should be asked questions about his motives is gaining sympathy. The vast majority of the Indian populace is watching as a man of straw is being propped up by the pillars of society.

Narendra Modi has done it again. We have a spooky scenario where the state organises no less than a ‘Bharat Swabhimaan Divas’ (self-esteem day) and the BJP leaders of the stature of L. K. Advani, Manohar Joshi, Arun Jaitley address a rally for the very same self-esteem all because one man cannot go to Florida to have some gupshup with a group of hoteliers and other Gujaratis.

Typically, Modi has been talking through his hat: “No court of India, or the world, has passed any judgment against either the Gujarat government, or its chief minister. The decision is heavily lopsided, against the tenets of democracy and human rights and a violation of natural justice. The American government, which prides itself on being a democracy, has indulged in the misdeed of insulting the Indian Constitution and the five crore people of Gujarat.”

Hello? Even if we were to ignore his hypocritical swipe at the US move being against democracy, human rights and natural justice, one wonders how by denying him a visa that country has insulted “the Indian Constitution and the five crore people of Gujarat.”

Does Mr. Modi know of the number of visa applications that are rejected? Has he waited in a queue at the consulate and had papers thrown at him only because of a certain name or religion? Will he now be able to identify with such a predicament?

On the other hand, is he aware that there are several Gujaratis who will be travelling this summer with Indian chefs ready to cook their dhoklas and khandvis for them? Does this mean that the rest of the five crore are being insulted? That the US embassy has been forced to rethink its decision just shows how much we are grovelling for the sake of one man of doubtful repute. Where is his ‘swabhimaan’ now? And that of Bharat?

How can a political party claim to speak on behalf of all Indians and their self-esteem? I am an Indian and I think that for once America has made absolutely the right decision. If we did not believe in farcical democracy, we should even consider revoking Narendra Modi’s citizenship of India. He is not fit to be a part of this nation. Did he not think about the Constitution and the self-esteem of his people when the riots took place?

And to think he is throwing our Constitution in the face of another country. Has he read through it? Does he realise he has gone against it in act and spirit? Yet, we have the appalling assertion by Mr. Advani: “The US regards India as a ‘pushover state’. However, this time they have chosen the wrong person. The fight for swabhimaan initiated by Narendra Modi will become the fight of the entire nation. It must be noted that even those who are ideologically against us have stood by Mr. Modi.”

For the kind attention of Mr. Advani, India has never been seen as a pushover state by the US. That is the reason that country cannot dictate terms regarding our internal policy as it does with others. We hold our own against WTO, we decide what multinationals we want, and we refuse aid. This is our self-esteem. Let us not cast aspersions on our nation only to promote a little matchstick as the flame and pride of India.

This man has gone to the extent of asking whether George Bush would be denied a visa here because of what he did in Iraq. In a manner of speaking, this is an admission of his antics in Gujarat. No one seems to have noticed that. Were we to deny the President of the US a visa, it is unlikely that Americans would be talking about a blow to their self-esteem and organising protest rallies.

In fact, there is no ambiguity in the US stand: “We confirm that the chief minister of Gujarat state, Narendra Modi, applied for but was denied a diplomatic visa under Section 214 (b) of the act because he was not coming for a purpose that qualified for a diplomatic visa. His tourist/business visa was revoked under Section 212 (a)(2)(g) of the act, which makes ‘any government official who was responsible for, or directly carried out at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom,’ ineligible for a visa.”

On what grounds then is the PM, Manmohan Singh, responding to this as evidence of “lack of sensitivity” based on “allegations”? Is he trying to say that several groups that are working among the people in relief camps in Gujarat are lying? Were the riots in the state a figment of someone’s imagination? Has he not read and heard statements by leaders of the current opposition gloating over the action-reaction theory?

Let us also ask a few questions about the diaspora Indians. They complain about racism, about discrimination in their adopted countries. Yet, they are duplicitous enough to lionise someone who has treated citizens of his own country with utter disdain. It would be naïve to assume that Modi was going to only talk tourism and investment potential to the bunch of Gujaratis in the US. There are ministers with specific portfolios to deal with these subjects.

It is clear that mutual-massaging is the only criterion. Expats suffering from nostalgia and a renewed vigour about their religion are being slowly tutored into believing that Hinduism is at risk. Earlier, it was from the jihadis, now they will have to add the ‘imperialist West’; the message being sent out is that those who are in ‘banwaas’ will be welcomed back as and when they wish to do so. But they will be protected by India only under the gaze of a Hindu Rashtra.

What does Modi get out of it? He gets legitimacy by ‘his people’. He could return saying that all overseas Indians believe in his ideology. And there is the obvious fact of funding by NRIs. We must not forget that several leaders of the Sangh Parivar have made overseas visits after the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the Bombay riots. We are quick to blame terrorist groups for seeking outside help. How about questioning these so-called political parties?

What could be the motivation of the US? It is obvious that having created the spectre of Islamic terrorism, it is being forced to look at other kinds of militancy. Why are we so agitated? Are we in denial?

Let us also not belabour the point about Narendra Modi being an elected leader. This happens to be the tragedy of our democracy, not its asset.