As Prime Minister Modi is about to embark on his fourth
visit to the U.S. in the last two years, U.S. lawmakers have sharply criticized
India’s human rights record. In a speech in New Delhi, U.S. Senator Benjamin L.
Cardin (D-Md), the ranking minority-party member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called on
India to “do better” to address issues of violence against women, government
corruption, extra-judicial killings, human trafficking and outdated
anti-conversion laws that are still in use. “ A country must respond to these
challenges,” he said.
Modi faced similar criticisms and faced protest
demonstrations from one group of another every time he has touched down on the
American soil. However, these strident criticisms from prominent lawmakers on
the eve of Modi’s address to a joint session of Congress reveals a deep-seated
reservation by many in Washington of a leader who once was denied entry into
the country based on his human rights record.
At a Congressional hearing held a week ago in Washington,
Bob Corker (Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee R-Tenn) and Timothy M.
Kaine (D-VA) questioned State Department officials on India’s human rights
issues, including its crackdown on nongovernmental organizations receiving
foreign funding such as Greenpeace and Ford Foundation, rising intolerance and
India’s recent decision to deny visas to the members of the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom who were planning to travel to India.
Undoubtedly, the Indian American Community as a whole would
like to see the bi-lateral relations between the U.S.
and India
strengthened and the progress achieved in the last decade or so to be
consolidated between these two democracies. However, a strategic alliance is a
partnership that would require trust and confidence in each other for a long
term value creating relationship. There is no doubt that both of these nations
need each other in the new world order, and the question is whether these two
countries are at a point where they are ready to move forward with such a
commitment.
Therefore, it is pertinent to analyze the upcoming visit of
the Prime Minister from that vantage point. If the objective of the
collaborative relationship is to achieve success for both nations, how can one
advance that notion while justifying the denial of visas to a U.S. government
body that monitors the core tenets of both of these democracies: freedom and
justice? The appropriate action ought to be in assisting each other to achieve
these goals and together building a stronger relationship.
For those who are advocating more reliable protection of
religious freedom got a boost recently when Congress upgraded the ‘Frank Wolf
International Religious Freedom Act’ giving Administration and the State
Department new political tools in monitoring and creating watch lists. The
legislation has also upgraded the office to Ambassador-at-large, who will be
directly reporting to the Secretary of State. It includes a provision as well directing
the President to focus sanctions on individuals who carry out or order
religious restrictions. The impact of these rules will eventually be felt
across the board while nations draft agreements ranging from Trade to
environment and Defense purchases.
President Obama’s speech in New Delhi,
to a great discomfiture of Modi, was a parting shot directed at his government
to modify its behavior as regards respecting the pluralistic legacy of the
modern India.
He listed the relevant articles in the Indian Constitution to make his case.
Despite the public posture, one could detect a chasm between these two leaders
who seem to think and view things from different perspectives.
I have been told that at a recent dinner party in Washington, a former
official was standing in line to greet President Obama. While shaking hands,
the official congratulated the President for the bold statement he has made in New Delhi. First, he
smiled and let go his hands and ready to greet the next guest, but on second
thought, leaned forward, tapped his shoulder and said ‘I meant every word of
it.' That says a volume of the thinking in Washington, especially with this White
House.
However, U.S.
is dealing with a different India
today that has gained stature as a growing economic power and a global player
that has to be respected and may even be courted. For the U.S, the changing
dynamics in Asia necessitates new alliances
and reliable partnerships. A rising China has created new challenges for the U.S. in that
part of the world and past agreements like the Indo-US civil nuclear deal
points to a strategy of exploring ways to sustain their global engagement
capability. Also, a 4 million strong Indian immigrant community in U.S. has become
vocal supporters of close collaboration between these two countries, often
lobbying with their Senators and Congressmen.
Despite all these natural advantages, India seemed to have put in a lot of effort in
convincing the U.S.
authorities for this ‘state visit’ and the upcoming appearance before the joint
session of Congress. There are unconfirmed reports of a quid-pro-quo as regards
major defense purchases preceded by a veiled warning of India taking
its defense purchases elsewhere if the same level of respect is not accorded to
Modi as it was with Dr. Manmohan Singh, his predecessor. It is widely known
that the sound of money garners a lot of mileage in Washington just as in any other capital
around the world. Apparently, Modi is getting his requital by gaining an
opportunity to bloviate before those who once denied him a simple entry visa to
the country.
However, if India
has to gain genuine respect and to be able to operate from a position of
strength and moral clarity, it has to start dealing with some of the issues the
lawmakers have raised. Last two years have witnessed a growing intolerance in
the country with attacks on places of worship of minorities, the murder of
secular advocates and harassment of liberal thinkers. People are afraid that
even their dietary habits like eating beef could cost them their lives. The HRD
ministry has been converted to become a vehicle to promote the ‘Hindutva’
ideology across campuses by shutting down Dalit student organizations and
applying sedition charges on students for mere sloganeering.
BJP and its followers seemed to believe that they have a
monopoly in defining what constitutes nationalism, and it has become a cause of
confusion and conflict in many university campuses. History teaches us that
ultra-nationalism is a sentiment of superiority and aggression towards others
or other countries. It is intrinsically connected to war and imperialism.
Therefore, India
as a pluralistic nation will be treading on dangerous waters with the ongoing
nationalist campaign, and the Prime Minister has a great responsibility to set
the right tone for the country.
Indian Diaspora in U.S. is much more a diverse
community representing different regions, languages, cultures and faiths than
what it is given credit for? According to latest statistics, 51% of the
Diaspora consists of Hindus and the rest includes Muslims, Sikhs, Christians,
Buddhists and other faiths. Indian Diaspora is primarily taking the shape of
Hindu Diaspora due to the cultural identity, and most of the Indians including
those who belong to other religions accept it as a practical matter. However, Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS
branches outside of India)
is becoming increasingly assertive in demanding unflinching patriotism and
preservation of Hindu culture and continuing with their efforts to present a
monolithic view of the Indian Diaspora to the American public. It is alleged that many of the Diaspora
organizations are raising money under the cover of 'charity' and ‘development’
to support RSS and its affiliates to wage violence against religious minorities
in India.
There is little doubt that the RSS cadre is playing a
prominent role in many of the Modi’s visits around the globe, particularly
wherever there is a significant Indian community. It is only laudable that the
Diaspora is enthusiastic and heartwarming towards any visit of a Prime Minister
from their motherland. However, when that community is used as political pawns
by turning them into a weapon against those who want to express their
grievances; it not only defeats the purpose and good will but rather pits one
group against the other and imports the same level of polarization and
divisions to the country of their adoption.
The recent attempt by Sangh organizations to reserve all 25 grounds on
the Capitol Hill on the day of Modi’s visit to address the joint session of
Congress is a case in point. That ‘clever’ and calculated maneuver made it
almost impossible for any other groups to gather near the venue and air their
dissenting point of view that is protected under the U.S. Constitution. It is quite obvious to any independent
observer that the objective of such action is to stifle criticism and banish
any dissent which is contrary to the spirit of democracy, and it is quite
appalling to see it happening right here in U.S.
It is time for the Prime Minister to be more assertive in
addressing these concerns at home and abroad and speak out forcefully when
human rights violations occur in India. Unless he can align the
actions of the radical elements of his
party in line with his lofty pronouncements abroad, the human rights issue will
continue to cast a shadow on his trips abroad, especially to U.S. Alfred
Whitney Griswold who once said the following: "Books won’t stay banned.
They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the
censor, and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas
is better ideas". Let freedom reign!
(Writer is a former Chief Technology Officer of the United
Nations and Chairman of the Indian National Overseas Congress, USA)
Author wants some congress man or some US authority to monitor the democratic India regularly and report to the masters and guide India in all selective areas where author has concern,
Looks like this author would have been much happier if the British Raj continued in Inida and ruled by a Sayp.
Sir as you wrote , one need not be overly nationalistic. But when people like you write like this ( with no basic national pride ) , thats when majority turns to over nationalists.
Jai Hind
I faithfully hope that this comment will be published. People get overly emotional when it comes to race and religion. The basic reason behind such an attitude is that countless number of human beings was slaughtered in the name of religion and race. Just refer to the history of human civilizations. Without a single exception this phenomenon repeated innumerable times.
Learning from our mistakes as a species of life-form on earth, we developed systems of governments to safeguard against such genocidal atrocities. Evolving a democratic system is a proof of such sane political thinking. However, we have seen, overtime, here and there, wicked people arise to quench the flame of political freedom and justice. Fascist forms take shape under the pretense of nationalism or other sweet-coated words. Slowly and steadily, it will engross and corrupt the social structure and rot it from its core. India is rich in various cultures and roots. All the years of Congress reign, there was no threat to the diversity of Indian culture. Even the government under PM Vajpai did not pose such a threat. But such a threat is very evident now. The minority are under attack, probably not always with weapons. The backward classes are the worst sufferers in this system of government. In many respects, the Dalits are pulled back to the time decades behind and are forced to live like how they used to. All the social gains achieved are forcefully taken away under the pretense of 'nationalism' or whatever they want to name it.
The saddest fact is that even criticism and protests are smothered by the present administration. The recent incidents in Delhi University are eye-openers for a truthful journalist. A nation's PM should be willing and available to hear grievances of all its citizens. If a particular group is monopolizing the right to give an audience to the PM, it is clearly injustice.
The author deserves credit for bringing out his opinion truthfully. Will he hold back 'a little' if it were in present India? I don't know.