|
Chicago:
A US Congressman who has mounted a campaign to revoke the ban on
an American visa for Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi says in
the "trying economic times" this country "could learn a great deal
from him".
"Modi has been recognized across the world for his staunch stance
against corruption and for making Gujarat a shining example of the
successes that pro-growth, limited government policies can create.
In the US's trying economic times, we could learn a great deal
from him. Instead of denying him a visa, we should be inviting him
to apply," Republican Congressman Joe Walsh, who represents
Illinois' 8th district from the Chicago area, told IANS in an
interview.
In recent months at the urging of his particularly vocal Indian
American constituents Congressman Walsh has stepped up his
campaign to end the seven-year-old ban by writing to Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton. In a letter dated June 13, 2012,
Walsh said, "The basis on which Modi was denied a diplomatic visa
was unfounded and not in compliance with US law.
Walsh is a controversial figure known for his strong anti-big
government views and is seen as a favorite of the Tea Party
movement, implacably opposed to the Obama administration generally
and President Barack Obama personally. In certain sections of
Chicago's Indian American community, particularly those who
support Modi, he is a popular figure.
The ban on Modi was imposed in 2005 when George W. Bush was
president and has been continued by his successor Barack Obama. It
was imposed under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act
relating to foreign government officials "who have committed
particularly severe violations of religious freedom." In the case
of the Gujarat chief minister,the 2002 Gujarat riots, in which
hundreds of Muslims were killed, were the primary cause that
triggered this particular section.
However, it is Walsh's argument that Modi "has never been tried
nor convicted, as required under this statute, of any religious
crimes in any country. Regardless, the statute states that he can
be denied a visa only up to 24 months after a conviction. The
allegations arose in 2002; it is now 2012."
In a reply to the Congressman dated July 3, 2012, David S Adams,
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs at the State Department,
countered the argument. He said that the two-year limitation cited
by Walsh was eliminated under a section of the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. "This provision now makes
persons found to have committed these acts permanently ineligible
for a visa. No conviction is required," Adams said. He, however,
said, "Should Modi submit a new application for a visa in the
future, he will be given every possible consideration consistent
with U.S. law and policy."
Notwithstanding that, Walsh maintained in his interview that both
the administrations have got this issue wrong. "Modi has neither
been tried nor convicted of any religious crimes in any country,"
he said.
Asked how hopeful he is of a resolution of this case, Walsh told
IANS: "I would not be taking on this cause if I were not hopeful
that a resolution was possible. This is an important issue to many
of my constituents and I plan on seeing it through."
On how aware he is of the extent of violence, widely seen in India
as being at the very least connived at by the Modi government, he
said, "I am aware of the unfortunate violence in the region, but
from what I have read and heard, there is no evidence that Modi
was behind or supported those actions. In fact, it appears as
though Modi has rightly made attempts to try to bring together the
Hindu and Muslim groups to ensure that future violence does not
occur. A goal everyone shares."
Walsh said he has spoken to Modi "briefly by phone."
He also said he knows about the conviction of Modi's former
education and children welfare minister Maya Kodnani but disagreed
that brought complicity potentially a step closer to the chief
minister.
"Modi himself has not been convicted and therefore, as we hold in
the United States, he is innocent until proven guilty. If we
forbid every leader into this country because someone in his
administration was involved in a scandal, the list of foreign
leaders eligible to visit would be very small," he said.
Asked what in his judgment has compelled the Obama administration
to maintain the ban originally imposed by the Bush administration,
he replied, "Politics. I'm sure President Obama is trying to avoid
further antagonizing the Pakistanis."
(Mayank Chhaya is a US-based writer and commentator. He can be
contacted at m@mayankchhaya.net)
|
Comments
|
Quick links