DEBATE @ THE HINDU The campaign against an elected leader was based on an exaggerated idea of what endorsement by an American university would do for his credibility among voters back home
As anybody with a modicum of knowledge of the American education system realises, private university campuses in that country are fiercely independent of the government and guard their freedom zealously. Such institutions and individuals at such institutions take decisions to teach subjects, advocate causes and invite or occasionally disinvite people on the basis of intellectual preferences, unvarnished by the positions of say the White House or the State Department.
Broadly, this contention is correct. In the specific case of the refusal to allow Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat, to address a business event related to India nobody can accuse the authorities at the University of Pennsylvania or its Wharton School of business of acting in conjunction with the administration in Washington DC. Nevertheless the logic offered by the three Indian-origin professors who led the Modi boycott campaign at the University does suggest some curious convergence.
Time lag
Consider the letter of protest the three professors drafted. It said Mr. Modi was the “same politician who was refused a diplomatic visa by the United States State Department on March 18, 2005, on the ground that he, as Chief Minister, did nothing to prevent a series of orchestrated riots that targeted Muslims in Gujarat.” “In taking cognisance of Mr. Modi’s culpability,” the letter went on, “the State Department also revoked his ‘existing tourist/business visa under section 212 (a) (2) (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act’ … David C. Mulford, U.S. ambassador to India … went on to say that the State Department's decision was ‘based on the fact that, as head of the State government in Gujarat between February 2002 and May 2002, [Modi] was responsible for the performance of State institutions at that time’.”
The implication of extensively quoting State Department material was obvious. This was a man, the professors were saying, who the U.S. government had prohibited from entering the country. As such by allowing Mr. Modi to address a Wharton event, even if by videoconference, the University was helping him sidestep that embargo. It amounted to giving him legitimacy despite the “cognisance of … culpability” by U.S. government authorities themselves.
This takes us back to that decision of March 2005, when the State Department showed Mr. Modi a red card. Three years had passed since the Gujarat riots. The U.S. embassy in New Delhi did nothing in 2002, 2003 or 2004. Why did it act 36 months later? What pricked its conscience? That question is not irrelevant; it is very germane to this discussion.
It is now fairly well known that the Modi decision was the result of a horrific misjudgement by a political appointee who had just come into the State Department at the beginning of President George W. Bush’s second term. Much against the advice of professional diplomats, this lady pushed ahead with the visa revocation. It was suggested that since Mr. Modi was a Bharatiya Janata Party man, this would win the U.S. favour with the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. Far from influencing voters against Mr. Modi, the gratuitous and clumsy intervention ended up incensing public opinion in India. Today, the three professors and their fellow travellers have done exactly the same thing. They claim to be conscientious objectors. Yet, the inspiration for their objection is a decision that was anything but conscientious, and one even those who took it in Washington DC, in March 2005 recognised as partisan and expedient.
Fundamentally, the State Department’s decision was based on an overstated assessment of how much American approbation or perceived approbation mattered in the exercise of political choices and voting preferences in India. The professors’ campaign to ostracise Mr. Modi is analogous and grounded in the same arrogance. It is premised on an exaggerated idea of how essential a University of Pennsylvania association is for the Gujarat Chief Minister to sell himself to voters and stakeholders in India. It presumes that an American campus — likely one based on the East Coast or in Berkeley — is the international arbiter of decency, values and good taste and can, with the magisterial flick of a switch, turn off the intellectual oxygen for a disagreeable individual and render him a non-person.
Not surprisingly, the move has backfired. It has led to misgivings in India far beyond Mr. Modi’s traditional constituency. Part of the reason for this is the contemporary political situation. The UPA government’s failures have given the Gujarat Chief Minister a greater appeal. Even so, that should not detain us if we are discussing principles rather than personalities. Presumably our positions should be consistent, irrespective of whether Mr. Modi tops the opinion polls or comes near the bottom.
(Ashok Malik is a Delhi-based journalist and commentator. E-mail: malikashok@gmail.com)
This article has been corrected for an editing error.
Keywords: Narendra Modi, Wharton India Economic Forum, Narendra Modi address cancellation, Wharton School, Arvind Kejriwal, Aam Admi Party, Gujarat riots
Good article - though everything stated seems to promote Modi,
definitely a different view point from the hackneyed views of Indian
media.
I find no reasons proffered to conclude (as the author did) that the Penn professors
were trying to influence the Indian electorate. While I would have preferred that the
invite stood and Modi was made to account for his role in the Gujarat riots, Penn
certainly has the same right to rescind the invitation as it did to invite Modi in the
first place. The scars that were indelibly etched on our psyche as a nation by the
Gujarat riots , and the resultant harm it did to communal amity can never be washed
away by any amount of image reinvention that Modi may indulge in. Regardless of
how our legal system may be browbeaten to letting Modi free, the role that the
actions / inactions of the Modi government played in fostering / enabling /
prolonging the riots will not be forgotten. Do you think prime minister Vajpayee
would think it fit to advise Modi of Rajdharma if Modi's government was not
culpable?
It is indeed a matter "incomprehensible" that despite the all around attack from the media, the left and right parties, Mr. Modi is still a winner !
The duplicity of the US Government is well known. What is pathetic
is that Educational Institutions like the U of P should take this
road.
Just a year back there was hue and cry about a bad movie insulting
Islam. And everyone shouted that in democracy one should allow
others to have a say even if it meant insulting some sections of the
society. Now, in the same nation, a man is not allowed to have his
say because he is blamed for covert support to attacks on Moslems
though nothing has been proved as yet.
The Universities in the US are no longer the same institutiosn which
stood for search of truth. They have become organisations who
provide jobs by those who have the "know who" and not the "know
how". What a shame.
Time we in India feel proud of ourselves. Stop putting these foreign
countries and their institutions in a high pedastal. They are just
as susceptible to prejudices and inept behavior as ours are.
1. Neutral article. That's great.
2. There has been different commisions in India which investigated the case, they are not able find anything. Why still cribbing and crying?
3. Lion doesn't bother about these silly things. Every hard situation will become a flower as he walks along.
4. Congress and many people with in the BJP are unable to deal with his charisma, intelligence, hard work, commitment and responsibility that he shoulders.
Naturally we have more of junk who are incapable, hence they will try to shout and get rid of him. But he has better strategies. What to do.
Just accept and enjoy, he is needed for our nation.
This Op-Ed makes the mistake of assuming that the professors, students
and alumni who campaigned against Modi's inclusion in the WIEF did so
because they wanted to influence voters and stakeholders in India: why
this assumption? They just wanted to prevent Modi from being given any
sort of respect by the institution that they are a part of. If I was a
part of a university, then I would not want someone like Modi to be
given an honor like this - however small a matter this might be. But
that does not mean that I believe that I can influence the electorate
of Gujarat. The author's premise is baseless.
Wouldn't a debate become a non-debate if each party attributes 'intentions' on the
other party instead of evaluating an action based on one's own stated values and
universally accepted logic? Isn't this Debate an example of a non-debate?
I think the cloud that Mr. Modi is under, whether he is truly guilty or not, is darker than the ones that President Bush and other war-makers had to face. While the latter waged ware in other countries, Mr. Modi is alleged to have turned a blind eye to people being killed in his own state. Either way, he has to try to erase the blot, rather than trying to do a thousand new good things. An apology would go a long way, and surely fair-minded people will understand that while he did make mistakes, he is not a callous bigot. However, trying to just increase popularity in a few die-hard fans does not buy the support of others.
If it was a misjudgment that led to cancellation of US Visa for NaMo in
2005, US should immediately cancel its wrong decision. He should be
allowed to attend conferences either using video conferencing or in
person as he wish.
One thing that the Americans need to understand is that Indians hate to be told what
is good for them and what is not by outsiders because it amounts to questioning
their intellectual capacity. This is exactly what has happened with NaMo who today
has a cult status irrespective of the number of followers. Indira Gandhi was the only
person in recent history, that I can remember, who had such a cult status. What is
interesting is that the more the Americans criticized and opposed her the more
popular she became within India.
Apparently the Americans never learn from history.
Even on Principle, Modi is far ahead of any other politician in India, taking into account performance. not compared with dummy, honest poiliticians
First of all americans has to answer humanright violations in iraq.
In the name of terror They are looting oil rich countries.
First of all they dont have right to judge others on basis of human rights.
As somebody mentioned british PM should not be allowed ,on basis of Jallianwala Bagh massacre .
We indians should not be biased by western hypocrites.
Even if you keep the Wharton disinvite aside for a moment,the fact that US government would interfere in the domestic affairs of another country like India has become evident from this item. That Condolla Rice wanted to curry favor the UPA government by revocation of visa to Modi in 2005 is in effect to play a saint irrespective of the atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan. Now the glee of the present Congress leaders on the disinvite is not followed up by our PM and FM to request USA to ban entry of Pakistan President into that country for beheading Indian soldiers across the border. Atleast the Imam of Jaipur has shown more courage than PM and FM as he wanted to boycott the Pakistani PM's visit to Darga for the same reason.
The unnamed US diplomat and the 'unnamed' stakeholders of the Wharton Univervsity has done a service to BJP and Mr Modi. The amount of publicity and the 'snub' by US and Wharton has generated more support for Mr Modi than any ad campaign.
Mr Modi is smuggly enjoying the publicity.
THE most neutral piece I have come across on the issue. Kudos.
on this grounds, Barak Obama should not be allow in India because of gun fire on Shikh Gurudwara or killing of innocents in movie theatre because he wasn't standing there to stop those gunmen.
whether Modi did something to punish the culprits is a matter of opinion and point of view.
Also, British prime minister should not allow in India because of Jallianwala Bagh.
its just unfortunate that our own countrymen are not supporting our own and just dancing on bandwagon of Americans and British. this was the reason of British raj in India and it hasn't change since then. Shame to be an Indian simply because of people like this and UPA.
Don't forget we stoke that arrogance by rolling out the red carpet to
their war criminals.
V. Ramaswami
New Jersey
While the universities and thought institutions in the US have their own brand of hypocrisy seeking legitimacy in the world arena through these institutions for Mr.Modi is a litmus test in some sense. If Mr. Modi aspires to be the future head of the Indian State one needs to check if the stains on his hands have any visibility. One way to do that is to preside over at conferences at premier institutions in the US. Well apparently some in the West still find the stains on his hands. But the sad truth is many thousands of affected individuals would ever get justice through the Indian court system. Just like the US politicians and bureaucrats who have engineered hundreds of mass murders around the globe, Mr.Modi would most likely go scot-free.
Hitler must be jealous of Mr. Naredra Modi
If one goes back to 2002-2003, and have a look on the news / articles / books written during or after the Gujrat genocide one would be convinced that the state sponsored act in the erstwhile Gujrat was no less inferior than that of Hitler's. If Hitler too has been given similar time and space, he too might have proved that he is the man of development and the people of Germany would have voted him to power many times. The present name fame in regard to Mr. Modi can be called as nothing but an example of mobocracy.
Hitler must have been saying (if he can) "Alas! I wish I could have been a Modi of Gujrat."
That three biased professors of Indian origin were allowed to sway the decision at Wharton does not speak very well of the otherwise-great Wharton.
There are many American Companies who want to be part of the economic explosion in Gujarat under Dr Modi. Under pressure from the American private sector, it will not be long before the State Dept may have to eat crow and invite Modi to visit the USA, rolling the red carpets!!!
The article mentions -"Part of the reason for this is the contemporary
political situation. The UPA government’s failures have given the
Gujarat Chief Minister a greater appeal. Even so, that should not detain
us if we are discussing principles rather than personalities." Correct!
I agree with this opinion. For some weeks I was observing bashing of
Gujrat CM in this newspaper and was feeling bad the neutrality was
missing.
Mr. Malik you are spot on. Unfortunately the Americans are naive when it comes to
India's voting patterns. In fact why the Americans- the best political pundits in India
cannot predict what goes on in the minds of the India's voters. As for Modi if his
SRCC speech popularity was anything to go by the next 14 months could see Modi
speaking to India's electorate in election rallies and college campuses and winning
over undecided voters. That is what matters, not what the State Department thinks or
does. Modi knows this very well.
a very well written article. i just wish to say that the professors are no "conscientious
objectors"; they are communists - you know the violent record of communism
against native ethos, not just in india but worldwide - who have a pathological
problem with the the bjp. the congress-aligned operatives there used this threat by
professors to armtwist the organizers. just look at the fact that the vast majority of
the signatories to this protest letter were non wharton people except a few who are
wharton alumni. and these few are congress aligned ones.
A brilliant and very well analyzed piece from Mr.Ashok Malik.He has stated all that needed to be said on this distasteful issue.In sum,by this disinvitation,the loss is that of the Business School.
Mr.Modi's stature instead of diminishing even by an atom,has
reached a ZENITH that these high faluting professors who caused the issue to reach Nadir will never even dare to imagine to reach in their lifetime.
All said and done, one day Modi will set his foot in US. US is a democratic nation on paper and highly intellectual only with select few Americans. Over all, the country is Capitalistic with a big C, profits and dollars are the Main priority of US. It needs to expand. Gujarat is a state with a stable economy, a business shrewd leader, hardworking people aiming for the best, the perfect qualities to invest in and make more money for US. Modi was a staunch Hindu then and still is. But he is also a shrewd business Gujarati, who has worked with his vision to bring up the state. There is a duality in this personality. And US will eventually ignore Modi's past ignoble act and will accommodate him to visit US and there will projects will take place. At the end of it, is is business, money and profits for both the parties. Nothing to do with politics and morality. Wake up and mark my words, both India and US are Capitalistic, that is all to it.
Why did it act 36 months later? Because that's when Modi applied for a visa.
By and far, most academics, especially in the Ivy League Schools such as Wharton, are out and out lefties, and basically communists, they viscerally hate anyone that challenges their dogma by the strength of their ideas or in case or Mr Modi his success as an avowed capitalist political leader. I have no doubt that this was the motivating factor for their 'holier-than-thou' stance against Mr. Modi.
It is a storm in a tea cup in term of the world stage, yet these childish, ivory tower academics who take themselves so seriously will end up looking silly when Mr. Modi indeed becomes prime minister of India and steers this great nation to higher plateaus of prosperity and achievement.
With the ascend of Mr. Modi on to the national and on to the world stage, the scrutiny of the allegation of his complicity in ethnic violence will be focused and rigorous. The results will be unsurprisingly 'Innocent of all charges', that will be poetic justice.
God bless us all.
What a joke of an article. Naming the article "arrogance of
misjudgement" and giving no proof as such of the said misjudgement by
the said lady. Not even her name is mentioned and then basing your
argument on greater conspiracy theory of political benefit without once
considering that people have principles and every action is taken by
them keep in mind those principles. Those professors are doing what they
think is right without regard to whether modi would have benefited from
such association or not.
When I saw the title I thought this would be another Modi bashing
article. But turned out to be a truly neutral and fine analysis of the
unnecessary controversy.
During 2002 to 2005 nothing could American Embassy do against Narendra
because the BJP was on power at the centre and they didn't allow and
influenced the Embassy to take actions against Modi. In 2005 onward UPA
government won the election and American Embassy was not refused actions
if they wanted to take. However, Modi government was criticized by
American Embassy, The Supreme Court of India, Vajpayee, Human Rights
Watch, Amnesty International, NHRC and many NGOs. Ashok Malik should
know the subject well before writing such an article.
Very well said. I am not a supporter of Modi or even BJP. However, every reason given
to prevent Modi from speaking at Wharton applied to Rajiv Gandhi, when many Sikhs
were killed in Delhi, and it can also be used against many other leaders involved in
unjustified wars, including some past leaders of the U.S. So, people seem to be using
double standards here.
Please Email the Editor