board77

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar18.html


First of all, Modi is a maniac. For those of you who don't remember the story, in February-March 2002 there were religious riots in his state following the sabotage of a train (with a lot of hindu devotees in it) allegedly by muslims. Lots of rapes and murders...initially it was only the muslims under attack, but then they started to fight back and it was a mess. Modi was the chief minister at the time... and not only did he do nothing to stop the riots, but he actually had policemen transferred to other areas if they tried to protect muslims from hindu mobs.People close to him were actually seen inciting mobs.
He then won the next elections with quite a substantial majority.
Since then, no one has been able to legally prove that Hindus did anything wrong...in every case the witnesses turn hostile or say they're scared to tell the truth.

The Gujarat riots were the most painful thing I'd ever had to deal with. I hate the man.

BUT. He WON the last elections. It would appear that the people of Gujarat CHOSE him to be their leader, despite (because of?) what he had done. And as long as the US runs aroud yelling about democracy, can they really deny a visa to a democratically elected leader? It's a bit of an insult to India.
And all it's done is to increase Modi's popularity in Gujarat...there's been a lot of dissent against him lately, even within his own party/ This has put an end to all that.

It's an excellent point. But the US never seems to notice hypocrisy when it's American hypocrisy.

In this they are not alone, though. It's just if Canada does something like this no one notices and no one cares!

I had read about the dreadful riots and sympathize with anyone who had to live through those days. Meneltarma

No, sorry Melly. I can't in this instance see what the US has done wrong here. If he is the sectarian bastard you describe then it is an action to be welcomed. It makes a moral statement. I can quite easily see that the communal divisions he has contributed to work in his favour at the moment but groups divided like that are always looking to find some form of persecution to justify their action and attitudes. Don't we just see it in Northern Ireland. I think the world community does have a role in saying what is acceptable behaviour and what is not and ultimately it ought to give strength to moderates and reformers. Don't hold your breath though. Look how long Eastern Europe and South Africa took. Perhaps the action would have more force if it had been undertaken multi-laterally. I don't know enough about the diplomatic background.

The problem is, if you accept the idea of democracy, then you must also accept a democratically elected leader. Even if the leader in question deserves to be hung. (note: Modi is the only man for whom I have ever considered revoking my anti-capital punishment stance). If you're the USA and run around creating democracies in countries that aren't ready for it (I sound like an elitist bitch and this deserves a topic of its own anyway) you have to be prepared for undesireable outcomes.
And I'd be thrilled if diplomatic decisions in general were based on making moral statements, but we all know that rarely happens.

The UK announced that they DID give Modi a visa, but would much prefer it if he did not enter the country. Modi today announced that he has cancelled his UK trip, citing "security concerns".

They didn't invite Gerry Adams to the White House or Congress on St. Patrick's Day this year, because the IRA has been backsliding in some regards. Extension of diplomatic visas or such has always been used as a diplomatic weapon/tool.

Not commenting on the individual case at hand so much as the practice in general. Diplomacy is in many ways the Art of the Snub.