Although TIME magazine included Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in its online poll for the world’s 100 most influential people, the United States government took a dimmer view of the controversial political leader this week when a State Department Spokesperson clarified that there was no change in its decision to deny Mr. Modi a visa to enter the country.
At a press briefing Spokesperson Victoria Nuland responded to a question regarding a letter that U.S. Congressman Joe Walsh, Republican of Illinois, had written to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, regarding whether the U.S.’ 2005 decision to not to issue Mr. Modi a visa would be reviewed.
Ms. Nuland said, “I haven’t seen the letter. I think you know that our position on the visa issue hasn’t changed at all, so I would guess that if we do respond, it’ll be along familiar lines.” The U.S. has expressed concerns about Mr. Modi’s association with the 2002 Gujarat riots, in which thousands were killed as an anti-Muslim pogrom was unleashed under his watch.
In 2005, Mr. Modi applied for but was denied a “diplomatic visa” under 214(b) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act and his existing tourist/business visa was revoked under Section 212 (a)(2)(g) of the Act.
Under the latter, foreign government officials are considered ineligible for a visa should the State Department view them as “responsible for, or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom.”
The debate on Mr. Modi’s visa status comes close on the heels of a heated discussion following his appearance on the TIME list. While the magazine itself described the online poll as “unscientific,” some political leaders were said to have labelled Mr. Modi an “internet manipulator,” for getting his supporters to vote in the TIME poll to boost his standing.
Ironically TIME magazine noted that Mr. Modi had “amassed the most ‘no’ votes of anyone featured on the poll — more than 260,000.” One of its editors Bobby Ghosh, explained, “Being on the cover of TIME is neither a prize nor an endorsement. It is a sign of a person’s importance, or of their influence, certainly. Modi is unquestionably both of those things.”
Keywords: Narendra Modi visa issue, Gujarat riots
Modi received 256792 'yes' vote and 266684 'no' votes,
the fact is he gained the maximum number for 'no' votes.
ohh no..!! does that mean he is the most hated person in that list of
200 persons ???
For proof see time website
USA may be a proud supercilious guy sometimes or manytimes but is making an important statement here, its a pretty good statement that keeps the gore in its place. Development is just a garb that easily befools the pseudo-angrez section of the hindustani junta that sees steely day dreams. TIME magazine could be an outblown eccentric reporter most of the time.
Salute Modi ji, he has done a great done in Gujarat, winning election
again and again, Even if many people say anything about this charismatic leader, he truly Great
Hats off to him.....
In general, I hate it when US tries moralising to other countries; but in this case, I am happy that US has snubbed Modi. Modi deserves to be shunned and taught a lesson. >And, for those who are saying that Modi is an elected leader and should be respected...; well, US is a sovereign nation too which has full right to refuse a person responsible for such heinous crimes entry into its territory. Now only if US could shed its double standards with respect to other dictators/human rights abusers et al., stop molly-coddling countries which suppress minorities, and uphold its founding principles everytime, not just when it's expedient to do so. But then, two wrongs don't make a right. We can't say that Modi should be respected because he is much more merciful than, say, Taliban or the Pakistani state which massacres its minorities. We have to do better than that.
TIME Magazine had Hitler as Man Of The Year too. The US State Department cannot modify its view of Modi based on the development of Gujarat. However, if he becomes the PM, there will be diplomatic reasons to change this stance since he will be representing the nation then.
Shri. Modi is a democratically elected leader in an Indian State. He
cannot be held responsible for happenings in Gujrat. What is reported in
Media is only half truth. See how he has shaped Gujarat into an
industrial state. Many industries want to shift from other states to
gujrat.Let us not look at everybody as a terrorist.
Should Modi become the Prime Minister or a prominent member of the Union cabinet, would the US still refuse to invite Modi or will the President of the USA refrain from meeting him? Regardless of whether Modi is guilty or innocent, it is a fact that the US meddles in the internal affairs of other nations. The charges against Modi are still being investigated in court but the US has already pronounced its judgement from half a world away. It is clear who has scant respect for due judicial process.
US seems to be care more about Modi's dark past than we Indians do.
The TIME Magazine Editor has put this in perspective. Being featured on the magazine cover only indicates the influence of the person. Using that as an endorsement will be foolish. In the past so many personalities - ranging from ruthless dictators to Nobel Laureates have all been featured on their Magazine cover. In the case of Modi - it may be that he is running an investor friendly Govt. - but that cannot abosolve him of the role he played in the gruesome communal violence in 2002. Hats off to the U.S. Govt. for standing firm on this.
What is the sarcastic pleasure you are deriving out of this? Has NM applied for his visa and got rejected? One does not understand your concern on this to warrant such a prominent display in your Home Page.
I am no fan of Mr. Modi but the US State Department has a lot of explanation to do to come out clean as it routinely issues visas to dictators, religious fanatics, and heads of states under whose direct watch religious freedom is thrown in to the Pacific - deepest ocean in the world. Look no further than Middle East. "Under the latter, foreign government officials are considered ineligible for a visa should the State Department view them as “responsible for, or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom.”" The operative and Key word the State Department manipulated here "SEVERE" Violations of the religious freedom. Please provide a better excuse.
Please Email the Editor