I think this is more rhetoric than rationale. I tend to agree that Modi being denied visa is audacious because a)These are diplomatic matters and such denials tantamount to a diplomatic policy. Modi is not an individual he represents the Govt of India. Sure he is a first class scoundrel but that is our internal affair. We should have kicked him out ourselves. But since we decided to keep him on the job we better face the music stand by him. If Modi is refused a visa then the PM should also be refused. After all he is ultimately responsible for whatever happens in the country. Right? b)As everyone states.. US does not have a clean human rights record themselves. But when did they care for that? Might is right after all!! However, the author making claims that Indians and esp. so-called secularists are responsible for it to me exhibits symptoms of the chronic hindutva virus. His insinuations are all in the air without any substantial grounding. Who are the so-called secularists? How have they influenced the US? And why does he believe that the US is a willing duck to the Machiavellian tactics of the secularists? And why has secularist become a dirty word in our country?
RE:Rhetoric over Rationale ?
by Indian on Apr 09, 2005 10:11 PM Permalink
a) This is not a diplomatic matter, since diplomatic reasons were not involved in Modis application for visa. Modi doesnt represent Govt. of India, but the State of Gujarat. Modi is refused a visa because of Modis (in)actions. If Modi is refused a visa, why should the PM be refused visa? The buck stops at the office of PM, but he is not responsible for phenomena such as post polarization victories this countrys statesmen make following genocides. So, wrong, the PM is not ultimately responsible for whatever happens in the country.
b) It is one thing that the US does not have clean human rights record. But that is no reason for that country to necessarily grant visas to other human rights violators. No thief would want his own stuff robbed.
If the secularists are behind this visa denial, then, good for them. A huge effort from their side, a slap on the wrist for a genocide perpetrator.
