What's new

Is India's Modi Succeeding in Isolating Pakistan?

so the question is what can we do to make china stop its esistence to pakistan and offer china a better and cheaper more secure thing that pakistan offers to china right now ..... but question is can we trust china even after it gets that ?
Sign a treaty with China giving them the access to all Indian infrastructure - kinda like if we accept becoming totally subservient to China. That is the only solution. I mean if we need to take billions of dollars from China on loan to improve infra here, such that Chinese companies build the same infra. And then we need to repay the loan with interest in the future. In short, we need China to own our rear.

Otherwise digest the insults now and keep working to make our country better with determination.
 
Sign a treaty with China giving them the access to all Indian infrastructure - kinda like if we accept becoming totally subservient to China. That is the only solution. I mean if we need to take billions of dollars from China on loan to improve infra here, such that Chinese companies build the same infra. And then we need to repay the loan with interest in the future. In short, we need China to own our rear.

Otherwise digest the insults now and keep working to make our country better with determination.
o i see is there no other way cause we have a way passing from nepal to bihar to west bengal to bay on bengal which i guess china wants and is very near to populated industrial megacities of china's eastern part but we cant do that ... im sure there must be some other way
 
o i see is there no other way cause we have a way passing from nepal to bihar to west bengal to bay on bengal which i guess china wants and is very near to populated industrial megacities of china's eastern part but we cant do that ... im sure there must be some other way
China knows it can never get it - it is a crucial region. To be a superpower, you need colonies. In the 21st century, you need neo-colonies. India knows the terms - there will never be a Chinese funded, Chinese run, Chinese operated and Indian return with interest project on Indian soil. China knows that. They are going to the only country that accepts those terms.
So yeah... :)
 
You can present your mega success of isolating Pakistan at BRICS as proof.
Since Pakistan has to deny its isolation in spite of her failure to hold SAARC meeting and failing to get the support of even a single country for her Kashmir cause in UNGA.

A very " Masoom" question before India present the proof of Isolation of Pakistan at Mega successful BRICS Summit


Why should we ourselves present the proof and get rebuffed by you ? When in fact we have already assigned this job of branding you "ISOLATED" to our friends like Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka etc. :P
 
so the question is what can we do to make china stop its esistence to pakistan and offer china a better and cheaper more secure thing that pakistan offers to china right now ..... but question is can we trust china even after it gets that ?
We should ignore Pakistan China nexus. Pakistan is happy in Chinese lap with single engine fighters that they believe they have designed and let Pakistanis feel China to be their knight in shining armour. At best they can send some salwar clad lunatic who may blow himself and kill hundreds of people and few soldiers. Nothing more. To counter China and also to progress we will have to setup industry. Still we have zero progress in semconductor industry. We will acquire technoligy any way we can.
For Pakistan , every option should be considered to punish it for the lives India lost. Projects on Indus river system should be expedited. Diplomatically India is doing a good job. I say we can also consider darul uloom to encourage further islamisation of Pakistan. Set up more madradas in Pakistan. This will help further maintain political instability and will keep investment away from Pakistan. Pakistan has many fault lines which India can exploit
 
Sign a treaty with China giving them the access to all Indian infrastructure - kinda like if we accept becoming totally subservient to China. That is the only solution.
Don't you think that instead of loans with guaranteed returns, India will be much better off with FDI's from friendly developed countries Like Japan and Germany. Or with ultra soft loan of the kind offered by Japanese for Bullet Train Project.
 
Don't you think that instead of loans with guaranteed returns, India will be much better off with FDI's from friendly developed countries Like Japan and Germany. Or with ultra soft loan of the kind offered by Japanese for Bullet Train Project.
Of course. A CPEC like deal will be terrible for India. FDIs are much better. We are going in the right direction.
 
We should ignore Pakistan China nexus. Pakistan is happy in Chinese lap with single engine fighters that they believe they have designed and let Pakistanis feel China to be their knight in shining armour. At best they can send some salwar clad lunatic who may blow himself and kill hundreds of people and few soldiers. Nothing more. To counter China and also to progress we will have to setup industry. Still we have zero progress in semconductor industry. We will acquire technoligy any way we can.
For Pakistan , every option should be considered to punish it for the lives India lost. Projects on Indus river system should be expedited. Diplomatically India is doing a good job. I say we can also consider darul uloom to encourage further islamisation of Pakistan. Set up more madradas in Pakistan. This will help further maintain political instability and will keep investment away from Pakistan. Pakistan has many fault lines which India can exploit
in short take from them everything but give them nothing :devil: :butcher:
 
Since Pakistan has to deny its isolation in spite of her failure to hold SAARC meeting and failing to get the support of even a single country for her Kashmir cause in UNGA.

A very " Masoom" question before India present the proof of Isolation of Pakistan at Mega successful BRICS Summit


Why should we ourselves present the proof and get rebuffed by you ? When in fact we have already assigned this job of branding you "ISOLATED" to our friends like Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka etc. :P

What is a big deal with SAARC? if tomorrow Pakistan refuse to attend the summit if it is being held in India then the summit will not take place even there.

It is a simple rule.

As far as isolation is concerned well if India is feeling good amid the most depressed nation's tag well I do not mind being isolated
 
Indian Defence News
We can destroy Israel in ‘less than 12 minutes’ :: The Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff
Saturday, October 22, 2016
By: AWD News

Source Link: CLICK HERE


The Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff has claimed that the Republic Islamic of Pakistan is capable of destroying the 'Jewish nation' in less than 12 minutes, the latest of a long series of threats against what it deems as the “Zionist regime.”

“If Israel tries to invade our sacred sites in Palestine, we will raze the Zionist regime in less than 12 minutes,” said Zubair Mahmood Hayat , The Pakistani Joint Chiefs .

In 1947, Israel’s founder, David Ben Gurion sent a telegram to Muhammad Ali Jinnah in an attempt to establish diplomatic relations with Pakistan. The telegram was initially ignored and to date, Pakistan still refuses to recognise Israel as a state.

Ben Gurion was allegedly quoted in The Jewish Chronicle in 1967 on his view of Pakistan:

The world Zionist movement should not be neglectful of the dangers of Pakistan to it. And Pakistan now should be its first target, for this ideological state is a threat to our existence. And Pakistan, the whole of it, hates the Jews and loves the Arabs. This lover of the Arabs is more dangerous to us than the Arabs themselves. For that matter, it is most essential for the world Zionism that it should now take immediate steps against Pakistan.

Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work from against Pakistan. It is essential that we exploit this base and strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans.

This famous quote has never been verified and many Israeli academics dispute its authenticity. However, it is a well-known fact that Israel is not favoured by Pakistan. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the recent blog published on The Express Tribune about Israel.

Over the years, I have heard many arguments regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict. From holding Hamas and Fatah accountable for internal bickering between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to blaming all Arabs for being arrogant towards south-east Asians as a whole – therefore the Palestinians deserve the unrest and the injustice. And above all the arguments is the one that takes the lead; Jews have the biblical right to a land that was promised to them by God.

To explain these reasons to a Palestinian living off UN handouts in a refugee camp in Lebanon or Jordan would be an insult and borderline insensitive. Imagine having your culture and livelihood taken from you and being expelled from your land. Or, to be degraded daily by the Israel Defence Force in checkpoints strewn across the occupied West Bank and have your child shot by Israeli extremist settlers in Nablus.

Human rights violations are rife despite Israel portraying itself as the beacon of freedom in the eyes of the international community. Israel would have you believe that Palestinians are all terrorists and it’s only defending its citizens from suicide bombers and Islamic extremists.

The reality however is very different.

There is a wide misconception that the clash over the holy land is solely between Muslims and Jews. There are over 300,000 Palestinian Christians in the disputed territories, along with many more living abroad. They too are discriminated against equally as their Muslim counterparts. Israel uses sophisticated lobbying from institutions such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to portray Palestine as the aggressor.

Then comes the question, ‘Would it be in Pakistan’s interest to recognise Israel, like countries who already have such as Egypt and Jordan?’

If not for economic stability, then maybe to increase its list of allies?

I would have to say no.

Not because of the Muslims versus Jews debate, or the ties many people have to the third most holiest site in Islam, Al-Aqsa Mosque, but based more on a human level.

If it was the other way around and Palestinians were occupying a land by killing innocent civilians and begrudging them their basic human rights in the 21st century, I would reiterate my decision regardless of religion or race.

We cannot let our names represent an apartheid regime and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. We should push for peace in one of the most complex conflicts of our time, and simultaneously hold Israel accountable for its actions – something which the UN repeatedly fails to do.

I must also emphasise that I’m not anti-semetic and I don’t agree that Jews are our enemies either. Zionism and Judaism are two very different concepts. To simplify things, all monotheistic beliefs are from the same maker which renders the fight over religion pointless; hate will only brew more hate.

This is a fight for human rights who everyone has the right to defend.

Pakistan itself has a tainted slate when it comes to human rights. But it wouldn’t get any closer to making amends by forming an alliance with Israel either. And as for improving Pakistan’s image externally, well maybe we should focus on procuring a change from within first and then worry about what image others have of us.
 
What is a big deal with SAARC? if tomorrow Pakistan refuse to attend the summit if it is being held in India then the summit will not take place even there

Ma'am you are missing the big Picture. It is not only the question of cancellation of SAARC Summit but the reasons forwarded by the member countries for not participating in it. All other Countries towed Indian line of branding Pakistan as a state which sponsors terror.

As far as isolation is concerned well if India is feeling good amid the most depressed nation's tag well I do not mind being isolated
All these tags of "Most depressed Nation" "Nation having most poor people" "Nation with no toilets" " Terrorist or Most Stupid PM" does not have much effect in common people lives.

What really matters is the direction in which your country is heading. If the citizens can feel that their lives are changing for better then they are usually satisfied. Sometimes the process of growth maybe slow but if the optimism is there, even then people feel relieved assured of a better future.

Close to eighty percent of Indians believe that Modi is striving hard to make India a better country. And that is a real feel good factor for optimism you see in Indians nowadays.

If Pakistan elects a PM who works 18 hours a day without taking a single day off and pursuing the only goal of uplifting your country, then would you feel depressed ?
 
Indian Defence News
We can destroy Israel in ‘less than 12 minutes’ :: The Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff
Saturday, October 22, 2016
By: AWD News

Source Link: CLICK HERE


The Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff has claimed that the Republic Islamic of Pakistan is capable of destroying the 'Jewish nation' in less than 12 minutes, the latest of a long series of threats against what it deems as the “Zionist regime.”

“If Israel tries to invade our sacred sites in Palestine, we will raze the Zionist regime in less than 12 minutes,” said Zubair Mahmood Hayat , The Pakistani Joint Chiefs .

In 1947, Israel’s founder, David Ben Gurion sent a telegram to Muhammad Ali Jinnah in an attempt to establish diplomatic relations with Pakistan. The telegram was initially ignored and to date, Pakistan still refuses to recognise Israel as a state.

Ben Gurion was allegedly quoted in The Jewish Chronicle in 1967 on his view of Pakistan:

The world Zionist movement should not be neglectful of the dangers of Pakistan to it. And Pakistan now should be its first target, for this ideological state is a threat to our existence. And Pakistan, the whole of it, hates the Jews and loves the Arabs. This lover of the Arabs is more dangerous to us than the Arabs themselves. For that matter, it is most essential for the world Zionism that it should now take immediate steps against Pakistan.

Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work from against Pakistan. It is essential that we exploit this base and strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans.

This famous quote has never been verified and many Israeli academics dispute its authenticity. However, it is a well-known fact that Israel is not favoured by Pakistan. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the recent blog published on The Express Tribune about Israel.

Over the years, I have heard many arguments regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict. From holding Hamas and Fatah accountable for internal bickering between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to blaming all Arabs for being arrogant towards south-east Asians as a whole – therefore the Palestinians deserve the unrest and the injustice. And above all the arguments is the one that takes the lead; Jews have the biblical right to a land that was promised to them by God.

To explain these reasons to a Palestinian living off UN handouts in a refugee camp in Lebanon or Jordan would be an insult and borderline insensitive. Imagine having your culture and livelihood taken from you and being expelled from your land. Or, to be degraded daily by the Israel Defence Force in checkpoints strewn across the occupied West Bank and have your child shot by Israeli extremist settlers in Nablus.

Human rights violations are rife despite Israel portraying itself as the beacon of freedom in the eyes of the international community. Israel would have you believe that Palestinians are all terrorists and it’s only defending its citizens from suicide bombers and Islamic extremists.

The reality however is very different.

There is a wide misconception that the clash over the holy land is solely between Muslims and Jews. There are over 300,000 Palestinian Christians in the disputed territories, along with many more living abroad. They too are discriminated against equally as their Muslim counterparts. Israel uses sophisticated lobbying from institutions such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to portray Palestine as the aggressor.

Then comes the question, ‘Would it be in Pakistan’s interest to recognise Israel, like countries who already have such as Egypt and Jordan?’

If not for economic stability, then maybe to increase its list of allies?

I would have to say no.

Not because of the Muslims versus Jews debate, or the ties many people have to the third most holiest site in Islam, Al-Aqsa Mosque, but based more on a human level.

If it was the other way around and Palestinians were occupying a land by killing innocent civilians and begrudging them their basic human rights in the 21st century, I would reiterate my decision regardless of religion or race.

We cannot let our names represent an apartheid regime and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. We should push for peace in one of the most complex conflicts of our time, and simultaneously hold Israel accountable for its actions – something which the UN repeatedly fails to do.

I must also emphasise that I’m not anti-semetic and I don’t agree that Jews are our enemies either. Zionism and Judaism are two very different concepts. To simplify things, all monotheistic beliefs are from the same maker which renders the fight over religion pointless; hate will only brew more hate.

This is a fight for human rights who everyone has the right to defend.

Pakistan itself has a tainted slate when it comes to human rights. But it wouldn’t get any closer to making amends by forming an alliance with Israel either. And as for improving Pakistan’s image externally, well maybe we should focus on procuring a change from within first and then worry about what image others have of us.


:lol: He did not say anything like that against Israel.

Seems the news sources is not authentic or it is weak
 
Why Narendra Modi Was Banned From the U.S.
Narendra Modi is the only person ever denied a U.S. visa based on a little-known law on religious freedom.


RV-AN347_MODI_P_20140502161450.jpg
ENLARGE
Narendra Modi, pictured on Jan. 18, was barred from U.S. in 2005 for failing to stop anti-Muslim riots. ASSOCIATED PRESS
By
JAMES MANN
Updated May 2, 2014 4:26 p.m. ET
2 COMMENTS
Well-intentioned U.S. policies sometimes work out in absurd ways, but this is hard to top: In a few weeks, India, the world's largest democracy, will probably elect as its next prime minister a politician who for nearly a decade has been prohibited from setting foot on U.S. soil.

The banned Indian official is Narendra Modi, a longtime Hindu nationalist who is the prime ministerial candidate of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP. Nine years ago, U.S. officials denied Mr. Modi a visa just as he was preparing to travel to New York to address Indian-Americans at a rally scheduled in Madison Square Garden.

That 2005 decision was based on Mr. Modi's failure to stop a series of deadly riots three years earlier by Hindus against minority Muslims in the Indian state of Gujarat, where he was (and remains) chief minister. The State Department invoked a little-known U.S. law passed in 1998 that makes foreign officials responsible for "severe violations of religious freedom" ineligible for visas. Mr. Modi is the only person ever denied a visa to the U.S. under this provision, U.S. officials confirm.


The 2005 decision by the George W. Bush administration now puts President Barack Obama in a bind. The U.S. could continue to deny entry to the likely leader of a democracy of great strategic importance. But virtually everyone seems to believe that once Mr. Modi's party wins office, the U.S. will reverse itself, and he will finally get his visa.

"Now that it looks like Modi will become prime minister, it's reasonable for the Obama administration to say it's been 12 years [since the 2002 riots], and we'll be happy to deal with him," says Nicholas Burns, the former undersecretary of state who supervised India policy during Mr. Bush's second term.

But even if Mr. Modi ultimately gets a visa, it is worth recalling the circumstances in which he was initially denied.

The story begins in 1998, when Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act, which set up new U.S. mechanisms to combat religious persecution, including a standing Commission on International Religious Freedom.

At the time, many members of Congress were concerned about reports that Christians were being persecuted in such places as China and Sudan. But critics said that the act reflected a Christian or Judeo-Christian bias. The National Council of Churches even warned that the new law might "promote the cause of Christians to the exclusion of persecuted believers of other religions."

That's where Mr. Modi enters the story. He was virtually raised by India's Hindu nationalist movement. The son of a local grocer, he spent his childhood in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu nationalist group that has sought to turn India, which is wildly diverse but has a large Hindu majority, into a Hindu state. After the group foundedthe BJP as its political wing in 1980, the fiery Mr. Modi rose through its ranks, becoming chief minister of Gujarat in 2001.

The next year, horrific violence erupted between Hindus and Muslims in Mr. Modi's state. At a train station, Muslims surrounded a train carrying Hindu pilgrims, and the two groups clashed. The train was set on fire, and 58 passengers died. Many Hindus blamed Muslim agitators for the blaze, and Hindu mobs rampaged through Muslim communities, beating people to death, raping women and burning homes. Over a period of days, more than 1,000 people were killed.

After years of investigations, no evidence has emerged to link Mr. Modi directly to these attacks. But questions linger about whether he took appropriate action to stop them; in some cases, the police stood by and did nothing. Mr. Modi has repeatedly said that he did what he could.

In Washington, the new Commission on International Religious Freedom took the opportunity to demonstrate that it sought to protect all religions, not just Christians. It held a rare public hearing on Capitol Hill about the anti-Muslim riots in India, taking vivid testimony from eyewitnesses. The members were struck by Mr. Modi's inaction. "It was wrenching, and it was documented," says one commission member, Shirin Tahir-Kheli, a Pakistani-American political scientist and former State Department official who was born in India.


Three years later, Mr. Modi applied for a visa to the U.S. to speak to audiences in New York and Florida. He had emerged as a figure who could attract support for his party at home and among the Indian diaspora.

But Mr. Modi had also become an intensely polarizing figure among Indian-Americans. Other Indian-American groups, including the Indian American Muslim Council, learned of Modi's planned visit and began lobbying the State Department, Congress and the sponsors of his speaking engagements to prevent him from appearing.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom said that Mr. Modi should be denied entry. The State Department agreed. Mr. Modi already held a tourist visa, but the State Department revoked it, citing the 1998 law on violations of religious freedom. "He was responsible for the performance of state institutions" at the time of the 2002 Gujarat riots, the U.S. ambassador to India, David Mulford, explained.

Bush administration officials also didn't see Mr. Modi as high-ranking enough to matter much. "At the time, he was not a national figure," says Mr. Burns, the former senior State Department official. "He was not the prime minister of India or a cabinet official. He was a regional official, and what had happened [in Gujarat] was reprehensible."

Denying Mr. Modi a visa hasn't stopped him from speaking to U.S. audiences. He has appeared often—not in person but by satellite from India. "The only value of the visa denial was symbolic," says Ashley Tellis, an India specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It did not cut off his connectivity to the people he wanted to meet."

But Mr. Modi was insulted and said that he wouldn't apply for a visa again. U.S. officials say, however, that he has tried indirectly. "From time to time, we would get feelers from people who knew him, or on his behalf, on whether we would grant a visa," says Richard Boucher, who headed the State Department's South Asia bureau from 2006 to 2009. "We would tell them, 'No, nothing's changed.' "

Finally, two months ago, as Mr. Modi's party—now running on a message of economic development and clean government—seemed poised to defeat the ruling Congress party in national elections, the Obama administration signaled a change. U.S. ambassador to India Nancy Powell held a one-hour meeting with Mr. Modi, the first such meeting since his visa was denied in 2005.

The State Department now has some grounds to claim that Mr. Modi's legal situation has changed since he was banned. Last year, an investigation approved by the Indian Supreme Court absolved Mr. Modi of complicity in the rioting. Based on that finding, a court in Gujarat found that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

But if Mr. Modi becomes India's prime minister, that fact by itself will be the main reason for the U.S. to shift course and allow him to enter—not any greater U.S. comfort with his past actions (and inactions).

"You cannot deny a visa to an Indian prime minister, for heaven's sake. How could we conduct an important relationship?" said Dr. Tahir-Kheli. "But by the same token, I hope it will be an inclusive Mr. Modi, representing a country that has all kinds of religions and mind-sets."

—Mr. Mann is a fellow in residence at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and the author of "The Obamians" and "Rise of the Vulcans."
 
Why Narendra Modi Was Banned From the U.S.
Narendra Modi is the only person ever denied a U.S. visa based on a little-known law on religious freedom.


RV-AN347_MODI_P_20140502161450.jpg
ENLARGE
Narendra Modi, pictured on Jan. 18, was barred from U.S. in 2005 for failing to stop anti-Muslim riots. ASSOCIATED PRESS
By
JAMES MANN
Updated May 2, 2014 4:26 p.m. ET
2 COMMENTS
Well-intentioned U.S. policies sometimes work out in absurd ways, but this is hard to top: In a few weeks, India, the world's largest democracy, will probably elect as its next prime minister a politician who for nearly a decade has been prohibited from setting foot on U.S. soil.

The banned Indian official is Narendra Modi, a longtime Hindu nationalist who is the prime ministerial candidate of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP. Nine years ago, U.S. officials denied Mr. Modi a visa just as he was preparing to travel to New York to address Indian-Americans at a rally scheduled in Madison Square Garden.

That 2005 decision was based on Mr. Modi's failure to stop a series of deadly riots three years earlier by Hindus against minority Muslims in the Indian state of Gujarat, where he was (and remains) chief minister. The State Department invoked a little-known U.S. law passed in 1998 that makes foreign officials responsible for "severe violations of religious freedom" ineligible for visas. Mr. Modi is the only person ever denied a visa to the U.S. under this provision, U.S. officials confirm.


The 2005 decision by the George W. Bush administration now puts President Barack Obama in a bind. The U.S. could continue to deny entry to the likely leader of a democracy of great strategic importance. But virtually everyone seems to believe that once Mr. Modi's party wins office, the U.S. will reverse itself, and he will finally get his visa.

"Now that it looks like Modi will become prime minister, it's reasonable for the Obama administration to say it's been 12 years [since the 2002 riots], and we'll be happy to deal with him," says Nicholas Burns, the former undersecretary of state who supervised India policy during Mr. Bush's second term.

But even if Mr. Modi ultimately gets a visa, it is worth recalling the circumstances in which he was initially denied.

The story begins in 1998, when Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act, which set up new U.S. mechanisms to combat religious persecution, including a standing Commission on International Religious Freedom.

At the time, many members of Congress were concerned about reports that Christians were being persecuted in such places as China and Sudan. But critics said that the act reflected a Christian or Judeo-Christian bias. The National Council of Churches even warned that the new law might "promote the cause of Christians to the exclusion of persecuted believers of other religions."

That's where Mr. Modi enters the story. He was virtually raised by India's Hindu nationalist movement. The son of a local grocer, he spent his childhood in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu nationalist group that has sought to turn India, which is wildly diverse but has a large Hindu majority, into a Hindu state. After the group foundedthe BJP as its political wing in 1980, the fiery Mr. Modi rose through its ranks, becoming chief minister of Gujarat in 2001.

The next year, horrific violence erupted between Hindus and Muslims in Mr. Modi's state. At a train station, Muslims surrounded a train carrying Hindu pilgrims, and the two groups clashed. The train was set on fire, and 58 passengers died. Many Hindus blamed Muslim agitators for the blaze, and Hindu mobs rampaged through Muslim communities, beating people to death, raping women and burning homes. Over a period of days, more than 1,000 people were killed.

After years of investigations, no evidence has emerged to link Mr. Modi directly to these attacks. But questions linger about whether he took appropriate action to stop them; in some cases, the police stood by and did nothing. Mr. Modi has repeatedly said that he did what he could.

In Washington, the new Commission on International Religious Freedom took the opportunity to demonstrate that it sought to protect all religions, not just Christians. It held a rare public hearing on Capitol Hill about the anti-Muslim riots in India, taking vivid testimony from eyewitnesses. The members were struck by Mr. Modi's inaction. "It was wrenching, and it was documented," says one commission member, Shirin Tahir-Kheli, a Pakistani-American political scientist and former State Department official who was born in India.


Three years later, Mr. Modi applied for a visa to the U.S. to speak to audiences in New York and Florida. He had emerged as a figure who could attract support for his party at home and among the Indian diaspora.

But Mr. Modi had also become an intensely polarizing figure among Indian-Americans. Other Indian-American groups, including the Indian American Muslim Council, learned of Modi's planned visit and began lobbying the State Department, Congress and the sponsors of his speaking engagements to prevent him from appearing.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom said that Mr. Modi should be denied entry. The State Department agreed. Mr. Modi already held a tourist visa, but the State Department revoked it, citing the 1998 law on violations of religious freedom. "He was responsible for the performance of state institutions" at the time of the 2002 Gujarat riots, the U.S. ambassador to India, David Mulford, explained.

Bush administration officials also didn't see Mr. Modi as high-ranking enough to matter much. "At the time, he was not a national figure," says Mr. Burns, the former senior State Department official. "He was not the prime minister of India or a cabinet official. He was a regional official, and what had happened [in Gujarat] was reprehensible."

Denying Mr. Modi a visa hasn't stopped him from speaking to U.S. audiences. He has appeared often—not in person but by satellite from India. "The only value of the visa denial was symbolic," says Ashley Tellis, an India specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It did not cut off his connectivity to the people he wanted to meet."

But Mr. Modi was insulted and said that he wouldn't apply for a visa again. U.S. officials say, however, that he has tried indirectly. "From time to time, we would get feelers from people who knew him, or on his behalf, on whether we would grant a visa," says Richard Boucher, who headed the State Department's South Asia bureau from 2006 to 2009. "We would tell them, 'No, nothing's changed.' "

Finally, two months ago, as Mr. Modi's party—now running on a message of economic development and clean government—seemed poised to defeat the ruling Congress party in national elections, the Obama administration signaled a change. U.S. ambassador to India Nancy Powell held a one-hour meeting with Mr. Modi, the first such meeting since his visa was denied in 2005.

The State Department now has some grounds to claim that Mr. Modi's legal situation has changed since he was banned. Last year, an investigation approved by the Indian Supreme Court absolved Mr. Modi of complicity in the rioting. Based on that finding, a court in Gujarat found that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

But if Mr. Modi becomes India's prime minister, that fact by itself will be the main reason for the U.S. to shift course and allow him to enter—not any greater U.S. comfort with his past actions (and inactions).

"You cannot deny a visa to an Indian prime minister, for heaven's sake. How could we conduct an important relationship?" said Dr. Tahir-Kheli. "But by the same token, I hope it will be an inclusive Mr. Modi, representing a country that has all kinds of religions and mind-sets."

—Mr. Mann is a fellow in residence at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and the author of "The Obamians" and "Rise of the Vulcans."
sirji with deu respect these are paid media (read english media which most is owened in india by congress party and church and west leaning/CIA funded NGOs like ford foundation)

now why they demonise NaMo cause he single handedly took away there one of the most satunch followers and revenue genrating states (Gujrat) also the liquar and drug mafia hated BJP/RSS cause they wiped out there interests in smuggling weapons , liquar and rugs across the gurat border which in congress ruled time used to be ususal thing and was flourishsing

now when NaMo was elected from a muslim majority seat in gujrat and was working over time to prepair fro the annual gujrat budget with two days hindu muslims ritos brokew when a group of muslims torched a coach of samabati express carrieng hindu pilgrims from the holy town of ayodhya (later was found out these muslims had links with liquar and rug mafia and congress party)

now the riots broke but no congress ruled state helped gujrat but all media worked overtime to demonise Namo and inspite of more than couple of dozen sepical investigation teams led by past , presnt high court and supreme court judges not one found a single shred of evidence agains Namo ...... ever wonderred why

cause one way or the other leads led to congress of the mafia now why did USA not let NaMO VISA cause more than 200 sitting congress , CPI-SP and JDS-JDU MPS gave a signed letter to US ambassador not to give NaMo a VISA and since congress and CPI-SP combo was ruling India tell me if you would have been US ambassador who would you have listened too :azn:
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom