CONGRESSIONAL REPORT STRENGTHENS CASE FOR FUTURE U.S. VISA FOR MODI

[Some in the coalition, particularly human rights lawyers, insisted that the United States not deny Mr. Modi a visa because it would upset relations with India. They argued that the best strategy to keep Mr. Modi out of the United States would be to sue the American government on the grounds that giving him a visa would be violating its own laws, specifically the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which stipulates that no person may enter the United States who has been found guilty of gross religious freedom violations.]

By Zahir Janmohamed

Adnan Abidi/ReutersNarendra Modi, prime ministerial candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party, 

during a rally in Amroha, Uttar Pradesh, on Saturday.

AHMEDABAD, India — On Dec. 5, 2012, Representative Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia, stood on the steps of the Capitol in Washington with 25 other members of Congress and urged the United States government “never to grant a visa to allow Chief Minister Modi to visit the United States under any circumstances.”

He was referring to Narendra Modi, the current chief minister of India’s western state of Gujarat, and the prime ministerial candidate representing the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party in India’s national elections. In 2005, the United States government denied Mr. Modi a visa based on allegations, made by Mr. Wolf and others, that Mr. Modi was complicit in the Gujarat riots of 2002, in which more than 1,000 people died, most of them Muslims.

But a recent report by the Congressional Research Service makes it clear that the word “never” may not have been the correct word to use, at least when it comes to Mr. Modi’s case.

According to the March 18 report, the United States reserves the right to change its position on visa matters. “A finding of inadmissibility for a foreign government official who committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom is not absolute,” Ruth Ellen Wasem, a Congressional Research Service researcher, wrote in her seven-page report, which was made public by members of Congress.

The report on Mr. Modi was requested by Representative Joe Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, whose office I worked in from 2009 to 2011. (I also worked on the campaign to deny Mr. Modi a visa in 2005.)

Both Mr. Pitts and Mr. Ellison have a track record of criticizing Mr. Modi. On Nov. 18, 2013, Mr. Pitts introduced House Resolution 417, which called for the United States to continue to deny Mr. Modi a visa and argued that “the Gujarat government has not adequately pursued justice for the victims of the 2002 violence.” Today, the resolution has 44 co-sponsors, including Mr. Ellison.

Ms. Wasem’s report, however, paints a different picture of Gujarat. “During Chief Minister Modi’s tenure in office, the state of Gujarat has had impressive economic development successes,” Ms. Wasem wrote in the report’s second line. She also pointed out that in 2010, an investigation authorized by the Supreme Court of India found no incriminating evidence that Mr. Modi had encouraged the riots.

If Mr. Modi becomes the next prime minister, as many analysts expect, he “would automatically be eligible for an A-1 (diplomatic) visa as head of state, regardless of the purpose of his visit,” Ms. Wasem wrote.

In fact, as prime minister, Mr. Modi will receive diplomatic immunity, the report said, something that would almost guarantee Mr. Modi a United States visa.

But given that none of the information in the report is new, why then would Mr. Pitts and Mr. Ellison want this information? One House aide I spoke with on Sunday, who requested anonymity because the aide was not authorized to speak to the media, said the report was “the last ditch effort to see what can be done to block Modi’s visa.”

In 2005, an unlikely coalition of evangelicals, Indian-born activists, Muslims and Jews came together to lobby against Mr. Modi’s planned visit to the United States. I was present in many of the closed-door meetings in the Congress and at the State Department when Mr. Modi’s visa was being discussed.

Some in the coalition, particularly human rights lawyers, insisted that the United States not deny Mr. Modi a visa because it would upset relations with India. They argued that the best strategy to keep Mr. Modi out of the United States would be to sue the American government on the grounds that giving him a visa would be violating its own laws, specifically the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which stipulates that no person may enter the United States who has been found guilty of gross religious freedom violations.

Much to our surprise, the United States did block Mr. Modi’s visa and no legal action was needed in 2005. Today, many of those same critics of Mr. Modi wonder if they should begin exploring legal options once again, as it may be the only remaining chance to keep Mr. Modi out.

This perhaps explains why the congressmen asked the Congressional Research Service about existing legal options to challenge a decision to grant a United States visa to a foreign national, but Ms. Wasem, an immigration specialist, said she was unable to answer the question. This will be addressed in a separate memorandum by Margaret Mikyung Lee of the agency’s American law division, but the release date for that report is not yet known.

Ms. Wasem did, however, raise one possible way the United States could deny Mr. Modi a visa. On Aug. 4, 2011, President Obama issued an executive order amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to grant the president the authority to deny entry to any person who has committed “war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious violations of human rights, or who attempted or conspired to do so.”

Mr. Obama inserted this language as part of his efforts to make the United States more responsive to genocide around the world. It is highly unlikely, though, that Mr. Obama will use this clause to deny Mr. Modi a visa, given the importance of the United States’ relationship with India, as well as Mr. Modi’s exoneration in Indian courts over his alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

The congressional debate on India should heat up this week when the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission is likely to hold a hearing about human rights in India. One of the possible witnesses is Christophe Jaffrelot, a professor at the renowned French educational institute Sciences Po, who has written extensively aboutHindu nationalism and has a biography of Mr. Modi coming out in the summer.

The hearing could be a chance to build more momentum against Mr. Modi, but the commission’s hearings generally draw few members of Congress. At the moment, there is little talk of Mr. Modi or India in Washington, given the crisis in Crimea, one House aide told me. Meanwhile, on her recent visit to India’s capital, Nisha Desai Biswal, a senior State Department official, said that the United States would welcome any democratically elected Indian leader.

As Mr. Modi’s detractors on Capitol Hill debate whether the United States can block Mr. Modi’s visa, one thing is clearer as a result of Ms. Wasem’s report: The prospect of keeping Mr. Modi out of the United States is looking dimmer and dimmer.

Zahir Janmohamed, a writer from the United States, lives in Ahmedabad. Follow him on Twitter @zahirj.

@ The New York Times