The maelstrom surrounding Mr. Narendra Modi’s trip to the USA has finally subsided and the vehemence at the visa being refused, as well as the jubilation over the same, have lost some of their edge.

Maybe, this is the time for some reflection. But first, some background.

Modi was at the center of the events in Gujarat 2002 – riots that ravaged the Muslim community in the state and left between 1000 and 5000 dead, based on various accounts. Whether the state was an interested by-stander or whether state machinery was encouraged to support the ravage can be debated; however, the direct responsibility of Mr. Modi vis-à-vis these deaths can not be questioned.

The burning of the train was blamed on the Muslim community – an aspect that has yet to be proven in courts and this was supposed to be reason enough for the riots. That, in fact, points to the irresponsibility of the state, if not its failure. A credible state does not encourage extra-legal processes for application of justice and that is exactly what Mr. Modi did in his ‘Action-Reaction’ speech. At the very least, he is culpable of inciting riots.

A democracy is based on the judiciary and the legislative; and the process of voting provides legitimacy to the legislature. While the judiciary has pro-actively pursued this case, Mr. Modi won the elections right after the riots; and he won it quite handily. That was the biggest pointer to the problems that beset the democracy. The people actually supported the actions of the government, if not ignored the inhuman strategies of Mr. Modi. Even in the national elections that followed, the BJP lost – many experts agree – owing to its economic policies, not its communal policies.

While a democracy is not just about the majority – it is about the ability of every citizen to participate in influencing policies and direction, and murder does affect the ability to participate – it is indeed a sad commentary that majority in Gujarat brought Mr. Modi back to power. What is perhaps even more saddening is the constant focus on primarily the judicial component of the process. Even as numerous activists and community members continue to work hard (and often under risk of grave personal harm) to prove charges against members of the government and the state bureaucracy, the limited efforts in starting community based processes that might begin to connect the two communities have been stark. This is manifested in the continued existence of camps, in barbed wired communities that have cropped up, in segregation in neighborhoods, even in schools, in attempts to boycott economically communities, among others. Clearly, in the absence of sustained efforts to begin processes that can bridge those difference, the conditions for another massacre, another round of riots exist – nay, fester. In this, we – the citizens of a democratic nation – have failed.

Even on the judicial front, besides comments by judges and by the National Human Rights Commission blaming the government, no verdicts have been given and no one has been held guilt, especially, among the state government and bureaucracy. These comments, themselves, have at best been slaps on the wrist for Mr. Modi – easily ignored. Three years after the riots, no national agency has held any one responsible and accountable for the death of thousands. That is another comment on miserable state of legal institutions of the state.

In the midst of this, an association representing American Hoteliers of Asian origin invited Mr. Modi to be the plenary speaker. An entire community that had been appalled by the inaction or the participation of the state in the riots decided to oppose the visit. It would be one way to castigate Mr. Modi for his actions. So, this community appealed variously to the corporations funding the meeting that they not sponsor it, other participants that they withdraw their participation and the US government (through letters and through lobbying with senators) that they revoke the visa to Mr. Modi.

All the above happened. The visa was also revoked on the grounds that Mr. Modi was responsible (as a government official) for the massacre. One set of communities was jubilant. They had won. Another set of communities – aficionados of the BJP and allies, as well as Indian Nationalist of other forms were angry. How could the USA pass judgment on the elected official of a sovereign nation? For, clearly, the US government had to make some judgment to take such an action.

For one, the US Government has the right to deny or give visa to whosoever it chooses. And the citizens of the USA have the right to ask their government to deny or give visas to various people.

However – for those who are not citizens of the USA, and especially those who are critical of processes of the current administration of the USA, and those questioning the legitimacy of its ‘judgments’ by this nation of other nations or leaders – it is not clear on what basis the government of the USA could be asked to judge any one else – and reward or punish them with a visa. In this context, the request by groups made up of Indian citizens to the US government for denial of a visa to Mr Modi was problematic ; and the denial of a visa was no victory.

Vis-à-vis, the riots in Gujarat and Mr. Modi, from the judicial perspective as well as the democratic processes in India, this is a non-issue. It affects neither. So what is the reason for this jubilation? What has been achieved?

- Sanat Mohanty

Related Articles:
US Evangelism Serious Threat to Indian Society
Who is Afraid of Religious Fundamentalism?
Savarkar and the Presentation of Hindutva
Union Minister Threatens Human Rights Activist on National TV
Indian Muslims Don't Need Law Boards