Skip to comments.Why Narendra Modi Was Banned From the U.S.
Posted on 05/04/2014 1:34:19 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Narendra Modi is the only person ever denied a U.S. visa based on a little-known law on religious freedom.
Well-intentioned U.S. policies sometimes work out in absurd ways, but this is hard to top: In a few weeks, India, the world's largest democracy, will probably elect as its next prime minister a politician who for nearly a decade has been prohibited from setting foot on U.S. soil.
The banned Indian official is Narendra Modi, a longtime Hindu nationalist who is the prime ministerial candidate of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP. Nine years ago, U.S. officials denied Mr. Modi a visa just as he was preparing to travel to New York to address Indian-Americans at a rally scheduled in Madison Square Garden.
That 2005 decision was based on Mr. Modi's failure to stop a series of deadly riots three years earlier by Hindus against minority Muslims in the Indian state of Gujarat, where he was (and remains) chief minister. The State Department invoked a little-known U.S. law passed in 1998 that makes foreign officials responsible for "severe violations of religious freedom" ineligible for visas. Mr. Modi is the only person ever denied a visa to the U.S. under this provision, U.S. officials confirm.
The 2005 decision by the George W. Bush administration now puts President Barack Obama in a bind. The U.S. could continue to deny entry to the likely leader of a democracy of great strategic importance. But virtually everyone seems to believe that once Mr. Modi's party wins office, the U.S. will reverse itself, and he will finally get his visa.
"Now that it looks like Modi will become prime minister, it's reasonable for the Obama administration to say it's been 12 years [since the 2002 riots], and we'll be happy to deal with him,"
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“But virtually everyone seems to believe that once Mr. Modi’s party wins office, the U.S. will reverse itself, and he will finally get his visa.”
He won’t, however, be allowed to own an NBA franchise.
Have you read about what happened during the riots in question, which it is nearly universally accepted in India he at least made no effort to stop, and quite possibly had planned?
And then still claim that he was excluded simply for being Hindu?
If necessary, I’ll post some of the more horrifying details. We have never, or at least not since the Indian massacres, had anything so horrible happen in this country.
I will cheerfully agree this provision of the law should have been applied to a good many Muslim leaders from various countries.
And some other Hindus, if they wanted to come to the U.S., and some Buddhists from places like Laos and Nepal, and lots more Moslems ...
Shoot, you can probably find a living, Christian, government official somewhere who has supported gross violations of religious freedom.
universally accepted in India
I was under the impression that nothing is univerally accepted in India. If he is universally accepted as a criminal in India, then why is he going to be prime minister?
Because lots and lots of the voters don't object to his having been involved in this stuff?
Lots of criminals were elected to high office in the South under Jim Crow. Lots are being elected and re-elected today in the US, mostly in big cities.
This inconsistency from the regime who protested banning an Iranian diplomat who took part in the 1970s iranian hostage crisis.
It's pretty clear this was in origin a political decision.
My objection is not that Modi should not have been excluded, but that many others did not have the law applied to them when it should have been.
You claim that the Commission is protecting Christians, can you show any evidence? There have been many attacks in the Middle East and Africa, and I didn’t hear anything from them.
Given the political axe to grind these groups have, I am surprised you would consider them a reliable source.
Where did I claim that? I quoted the WSJ, which discussed Bush administration attempts to portray themselves as not just interested in protecting Christians.
As I've said a couple of times, the law is not applied often enough.
well that should exclude about half the UN members at this point
The Indian Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigating Team to probe Modis role in the riots. After a very long investigation, they could not find any evidence whatsoever, of his complicity. In fact, most of the allegations against him were debunked as being politically motivated. Some NGOs even cooked up many "atrocities" and spread the slander around, to continue receiving funds from the Congress and from abroad.
The fact is, he called in the army within 12 hours or so. But the army was deployed on the borders and took 24 hours to deploy in the cities. As for the "instigation" part, all "evidence" is from a person who says he gave oral instructions that the rioters must be given a free hand, in a meeting convened in the CMs office. But actual invitees to that meeting do not corroborate that statement, say that the cop who made that statement was not present as he was too junior. (That cops wife later stood against Modi in the state elections. She represented the Congress party)
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]