But the pro forma invitations to Mr Modi to visit Washington are really meaningless unless the issue of his lifetime ban on entry to the US as a private citizen is resolved
Although no official announcement has been made by either side so far, it is learnt that Prime Minister Modi has accepted Obama’s invitation to visit Washington in September. While there is no doubt that India-US strategic relationship is important not only for the two countries but for international peace and security — both global and regional — it is worth examining whether the Indian Prime Minister should be the first to initiate a high-level visit from one country to the other. This issue is only in connection with the visit of the Indian PM to Washington; it does not in any manner stand in the way of bilateral talks between the Indian PM and the US President in New York at the time of UN meetings. Why should this be a factor in arranging bilateral visitsIJ
This is in view of the intensely hostile attitude that the US — both the Executive and legislative branches — had taken against Mr Modi on grounds that he was guilty of “particularly severe violations of religious freedom” defined as (a) torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (b) prolonged detention without charges (c) causing the disappearance of persons by abduction or clandestine detention of those persons or (d) other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons. Accordingly under the International Freedom of Religion Act (IRFA), passed in 1998, his existing visa was revoked in 2005 under Sec 212 (a)(2)(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and he was barred for life from entering the US as a private citizen.
Although since 1998, the US had designated a number of countries as “Countries of Particular Concern (CPC)” i.e., countries/governments that have practiced “particularly severe violations of religious freedom” (China is one country that has been named as a CPC every year since the passage of the IRFA), Mr Modi remains the one and only person subjected to denial of visa for life under the provisions of the IRFA. Indeed during the 16 years since the Act was passed and in spite of a large number of countries having been designated as CPC and the IRFA legislation requiring the administration to identify the individuals responsible for such severe violations, Mr Modi has been the only person identified by the US government as being responsible for any such severe violation. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) laments regularly in its annual reports, “Despite these requirements (i.e., identification of persons responsible for violations), no individual officials from any CPC nation responsible for particularly severe religious freedom violations have been identified to date.”
In addition, several Congressional members, individually and collectively, had tabled strong anti-Modi resolutions between 2002 and as recently as October 2013. The US Administration had studiously avoided any contact with Mr Modi both at federal level and at the consular level in India. It is only after his victory in recent elections that various segments of the US Administration and legislature started making favourable comments about Mr Modi inviting him to the US but only as the PM of India with the lifetime ban on Mr Modi as a private individual still effective. Incidentally Mr Modi as the head of government does not require any invitation to visit the US for attending UN sessions.
While it is true that
Mr Modi himself does not hold any grudge against the US or has at any time expressed any strong desire to visit the US and has, in fact, been quite fair in treating US capital and industry in its endeavour to invest in Gujarat, in recent times the US Administration has been quite cavalier in its approach to India’s institutions. In case of Mr Modi, the US Administration trusted the motivated campaigns against Modi and found him guilty of severe violations of religious freedom even though all the cases, mostly fabricated, failed in Indian courts.
More recently, in the Devyani Khobragade case, the US Administration secretly spirited Indian nationals out of India purely on the individual allegations that they will be tortured, etc, if they were to stay in India.
So what is the way outIJ
For a starter, the pro forma invitations to Mr Modi to visit Washington are really meaningless unless the issue of Mr Modi’s lifetime ban on entry to the US as a private citizen is resolved. It is not really easy to conceive how a growing strategic partnership between India and the US can be sustained in any meaningful manner in the coming decade when (a) the security environment in Asia is likely to undergo major changes, (b) Mr Modi is guaranteed a decade of Indian leadership, if he fulfils even half of the expectations of the Indian electorate and (c) the US officially considers Mr Modi to be a major perpetrator of severe human and religious rights violations.
This can be done in two steps: First, by either (a) the US Attorney General, under Sec. 212(d)(3)(A) of INA, waiving the inadmissibility under 212(a)(2)(g) of INA, or (b) the US Congress passing a resolution waiving the inadmissibility. Secondly, by the visit of a high-level US political leadership, preferably the US Vice President, to India, which can be followed by Mr Modi’s visit to Washington. Neither of these would involve any major loss of face on either side.
Incidentally while one should be proud that Americans of Indian origin are playing increasingly important public roles in the US, some of irritants in Indo-US relations can be traced to these Americans of Indian origin. One is, of course, aware of the role that was played by one such person, Preet Bharara, the US Attorney for the southern district of New York in the recent Khobragade affair, which had affected and continues to affect India-US bilateral relations. Another such person was Preeta Bansal, who as the Chair of USCIRF recommended the US government to revoke Mr Modi’s visa in 2005, an action which has the potential to derail India-US strategic relations.
(Dr G Balachandran is a Consulting Fellow at IDSA)