Friday, March 18, 2005

B* slapping modi

Sepia mutiny's article on modi's visa denial made me think on this US action.

Given the fact that modi is still the chief minister of an indian state, clearly shows that he has not been found guilty so far. So how can USA make a unilateral decision on whether modi is guilty or not?. Can india deny visa for BUSH cause he was responsible for killing so many peoples in iraq?.

Or is it the fact that USA doesn't want someone who has allegedly killed so many indian people in their soil. Then what was warren anderson doing in USA.This man is responsible for killing more than 20,000 people in bhopal gas tragedy



If it is public opinion that forced the decision, then lot of people should have been B* slapped. There is always protest when ariel sharon visit's US.
Since Sharon took office, in Feb., 2001, over 2000 Palestinians have been killed, 327 by extra-judicial assassinations. Nevertheless, Bush describes Sharon as a MAN OF PEACE.more

Chinese premier Jiang Zemin visted USA and there were lot of protests. But when the Chinese President, US protestors had flags and banners ripped of from their hands by the police.
The Chinese people began to hope for greater freedom. In 1989 thousands demonstrated in Tiananmen Square in the capital, Beijing. They wanted democracy and freedom to express their views. Their protest was squashed with tanks and guns. The U.S. was furious that China had turned military weapons on its own people. To punish China's leaders, the U.S. cut back on trade.

Now both countries' leaders say it's time to talk. Last week they did agree on some business deals. U.S. companies are eager to sell more goods to China's 1.2 billion people. Jiang said China would buy U.S.-made airplanes and, possibly, nuclear-energy reactors.

But the two men did not agree on the issue of human rights. Jiang refused to apologize for the killings in Tiananmen Square. He paid no attention to American protesters, including some Congressmen who want him to free prisoners jailed for their political beliefs. Nor is he interested in granting religious freedom to the people of Tibet, in southwestern China.
How come a man who supported crushing of people under the tanks was not B* slapped?. Because you cannot B* slap some one from People's Republic of CHINA, If you do u will have to face the consequences and you cannot mess with the Israeliā€™s either. But anyone from india, hi bring it on....

Iam not trying to justify modi's action in the Gujarat riots. Iam just questioning USA's unilateral decision and double standards.We are not ruled by a dictator and we have a free and fare judicial system. But USA taking a unilateral decision and denying visa to a man holding a high official position in the govt is belittling to our judicial system. Granting him visa and denying it without consulting the indian govt is also a mistake.The indian govt should take this matter seriously and assert itself.



Comments:
Here is the simple difference. All of your other examples are HEADS of STATE. The U.S. HAS to deal with them in order to guide them toward the principles of democracy and freedom. Modi is NOT a head of state and by denying him a Visa, the U.S. has assured that he has such a large black spot on his record that he will never rise any higher in Indian politics and we will never have to deal with him like we have to deal with your other examples. This is outstanding foreign policy. Modi has just been made irrelevant both abroad and now probably at home. Let's watch and see if his rats jump ship. This has nothing to do with not respecting India. That opinion (if it is your position) is colored by Nationalism I think.
 
Abhi,
you are right.US had to deal with them cause they were Head of states.But denying visa to modi is not because of lack of want to deal with someone like modi.US govt is more comfortable in dealing with people who misuse power.There is a big list of dictators that US govt engages to increase its power and wealth.

If the US govt felt that modi has done something wrong . Then they should have revoked his visa after the riots.That would have been a good foriegn policy.Modi has visited US several times after the Gujarat riots.why was his visa not revoked then.why now?.

If they didn't wanted his visit, they could have let the information known by diplomatic channels.Taking the action after the prime minsiter of india approving his visit and not trying the diplomatic back door channel clearly shows the amount of respect USA has for india.Given the same case with another country like china.US would have done a back door diplomacy.

so this has got something to do with not respecting india and i think may be your opinion is colored by psuedo-secular liberalism.
 
Good article. I remember the US inviting Kashmiri separatist leaders! Killing Kashmiri Pandits doesnt seem to be a crime. No one has ever raised the question of why a 2 yr old was torched in Godhra, and why many still call those who visited Ram temple as criminals and killing them was not a crime. The US has never raised concerns about the plight of hindus in Bangladesh or in Kashmir or Pakistan. I guess hindus are only allowed to take all the bashing and not react back!!
 
Abhi
Here is the simple difference. All of your other examples are HEADS of STATE. The U.S. HAS to deal with them in order to guide them toward the principles of democracy and freedom

Now come on! Do you seriously believe that the US is guiding Hu Jintao towards principles of democracy and freedom?
 
Senthil,
I am not sure what a pseudo-secular is. What makes me "pseudo?"

Nitin,
YES. Absolutely. Every sucessive Chinese leader has passed more reforms because of U.S. engagement.

Read my follow up article on SM for a better explanation of why I think Modi was denied.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?