Rebuff for Modi
BY revoking the visa for Mr Narendra Modi, the American government has let the world know what it thinks of the Gujarat chief minister. From February to May 2002, Gujarat was rocked by anti-Muslim pogroms. Exact casualty figures are not known, but even by modest estimates 3,000 people were killed, an overwhelming majority of them Muslims. The Gujarat violence was the worst bout of communal rioting in India since the disturbances that followed the destruction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya in 1992. There was, however, one major difference between the two. While the post-Ayodhya rioting resulted from spontaneous Muslim anger over the mosque’s demolition, the Gujarat carnage was engineered with the full connivance of the state government headed by Mr Modi. Three years have passed, but the world still does not know the truth about the alleged burning of some train compartments by Muslims which is supposed to have triggered the riots. The world media and India’s own human rights groups and sections of the press reported that the official machinery, including the police, stood idly by while rioters went about killing Muslims, dishonouring women and burning their property. There was substance in these reports, because several European embassies sent revealing reports to their governments and annoyed New Delhi by leaking their contents to the Indian press. There were demands in India, too, that Mr Modi be sacked, but with a BJP government in power in New Delhi the Modi raj continued.
The cancellation of his visa by the US serves to highlight Mr Modi’s criminal role in the riots and his failure to protect the life, honour and property of Gujarat’s Muslim citizens. The American decision blacklisting Mr Modi comes under that clause of the US immigration act which covers violations of religious freedom. The Indian foreign ministry has expressed its concern over the cancellation of the visa for the “honourable chief minister of Gujarat”, but the world can see that the American action has rightly indicted Mr Modi for what he is — a fundamentalist using state power to persecute a minority.

