Last week, United States Deputy Secretary of State met Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi and formally handed over an invitation to him from President Barack Obama for a meeting in September at the White House.
State Department cables and other documents that The Hindu has obtained through a Freedom of Information Act show how difficult this reconciliation with Prime Minister Modi must have been for the U.S.
The cables indicate that Washington, , which is now warming to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, remained cautiously sceptical while tracking the torturous path of the 2002 riots case brought by Zakia Jafri, wife of Congress MP Ehsan Jafri who was killed during the riots, through to the Supreme Court.
Following a visit of its political officers to Gujarat, the U.S. consulate in Mumbai described in a confidential cable dated January 2011 ( >DTG: 060447Z JAN 11; SENSITIVE, NOFORN ) a December 2010 newspaper report implying that the SIT had given Mr. Modi a clean chit as “Media report jumps the gun on exonerating Modi.”
The consulate wrote that, “ … several sources have told us that no official decision by the SIT has been made public and the story was the product of an overambitious Modi sympathiser.”
The 2014 election that brought Mr. Modi to the prime ministership was then still far away. A redacted segment of the cable, on Mr. Modi’s chances in national politics, reflected on “… the severity of the challenges he would face in trying to achieve national popularity,” describing in particular his “failure to express remorse or regret over the 2002 riots” as a “lightning rod for his political opponents that he has been unable to shake off … .”
Nowhere was this ‘lightning rod’ effect more clearly displayed than surrounding the question of whether Mr. Modi would submit to the summons he received from the SIT in March 2010 to “answer questions about his involvement in at least one major violent event,” noted an unclassified cable dated March 2010 ( >DTG: 261214Z MAR 10; UNCLAS, SENSITIVE, SIPDIS ).
The U.S. seemed sceptical of whether Mr. Modi would agree to attend the questioning. Said the cable, “Modi may still use legal tactics to delay his appearance, and continue to resist inquiries and investigations into his role in the events of 2002, which he has done successfully so far.”
Amidst much confusion, the cable recorded, and possible deliberate misinformation about the >summons he received, “Modi did not appear at the SIT offices on March 21. Instead, on March 22, Modi issued a public letter to the people of Gujarat denying that he had been summoned. In his characteristic style he said that the false media reports were a slight against the people of Gujarat.”
The U.S. clearly sounded out various groups on their opinion at this time, and the cable reported, “On March 24, in a discussion with ConGenOffs, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh insider was unfazed by the SIT summons, and claimed that Modi will become the BJP’s national leader after the 2012 Gujarat State elections. According to the RSS insider, Modi is the only leader who can credibly challenge Rahul Gandhi in the 2014 national elections.”
As it turned out, the SIT quizzed Mr. Modi for over eight hours on March 27, another cable dated March 2010 ( >DTG: 291247Z MAR 10; UNCLAS, SIPDIS ) said, noting the strong reaction its prompted from both sides.
The cable noted that a BJP national spokesperson stated, “Modi has behaved with grace, like a responsible citizen,” and that “this wasn’t an embarrassment for the party.”
Yet it pointedly drew attention to a statement by Veerappa Moily, then the Law Minister, who said, “It is most unfortunate that he landed himself into that kind of situation. It is not desirable — but that demonstrates the fact that nobody is above the law.”
