[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.