>U.S. State Department cables on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi obtained by The Hindu through a Freedom of Information Act request suggest that although Washington appeared to believe that the SIT investigation into the riots could be muddying Mr. Modi’s political prospects, by 2011 American diplomats in India seemed to be reluctantly veering around to the view that the former Chief Minister’s star was on the ascendant.
An unclassified cable ( >DTG: 080522Z FEB 11; UNCLAS ) from the Mumbai consulate of the U.S. detailed the February 3 2011 episode of Tehelka publishing a leaked report on the SIT inquiry, noting that it, “included criticism of… Modi’s passive response to the riots, and accused his administration and the state police of obstructing numerous investigations in to the riots.”
This cable, which was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton along with several U.S. diplomatic posts in India and Pakistan, outlined in detail for this audience the report’s main criticisms of the Modi administration’s conduct during the riot and cited Mr. Modi’s “offensive or inflammatory comments… with the intent to either instigate violence of dismiss the killing of Muslims;” his “discriminatory attitude” in refusing to visit riot-affected areas in Muslim-majority neighbourhoods though he visited Godhra right after the train burning; the destruction of “all police wireless radio records, control-room phone records and minutes of a crucial meeting on the evening of the train-burning incident;” the fact that the state police did not impose a curfew in parts of Ahmedabad until well after the violence started; and the appointment of “Modi-sympathisers or BJP supporters” as public prosecutors in numerous riot cases.
These allegations notwithstanding, the cable also informed State Department headquarters that the SIT could not uncover a “smoking gun,” tying Mr. Modi directly to illegal conduct during the riots, yet it added, “Modi’s supporters will trumpet this as the report’s clearing his name, while downplaying the SIT’s findings that the Gujarat government obstructed investigations into the violence.”
A second cable on the riots cases ( >DTG: 161050Z SEP 11; CONFIDENTIAL, SENSITIVE ) commented upon two developments that seemed to favour the political prospects of Mr. Modi, firstly the September 12 2011 decision by the Indian Supreme Court directing the SIT to submit its riots report to a Gujarat trial court, and second, a U.S. Congressional Research Service report that praised Gujarat’s development and Modi’s leadership.
Regarding the Supreme Court decision the cable to the Secretary of State hinted that there were “conflicting views,” on its implications, citing in particular the comments by the amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran that “It is premature to talk of either clean chits or an indictment.”
The cable quoted Ms. Jafri’s remark to the media after the decision where she said, “What should I expect from the lower court if I did not get justice from the Supreme Court? I am totally disappointed.”
It also seemed to suggest that the U.S. was maintaining contacts with those speaking for the complainant in the case against Mr. Modi, and quoted an individual whose name was redacted in the cable expressing to U.S. officials their “disappointment that the SIT was still in charge of the investigation, given previous complaints regarding the impartiality of the group and its member’s ties to Gujarat government officials.”
Second, the same cable, which was also authored by the Mumbai consulate, said that when the CRS report praising development in Gujarat came out, “Modi quickly pounced on the report, tweeting, ‘Another recognition for 6 crore Gujaratis.’”
Yet it underscored the response of Congress Spokesperson Manish Tewari who said, “The BJP has decided to extol a purported report by a U.S. think tank. Then I think they should also be cognisant that the same U.S. still continues to deny Modi a visa.”
At the very least, the cable said, the report had “added further speculation in the local media about whether the USG is reconsidering its view of Modi.”
As 2012 rolled along and the riots cases inched forward, the U.S. posts appeared to be clearer still that the views on Mr. Modi’s culpability were definitely split.
In a cable authored by the U.S. embassy in New Delhi ( >DTG: 301206Z MAY 12; CONFIDENTIAL ) officials wrote that the reports produced by the SIT and the amicus curiae “came to widely differing conclusions,” with the former recommending that no charges be brought against Mr. Modi but the latter assessing that there was “prima facie evidence against Modi, [in particular that Mr. Modi’s] alleged ‘vent their anger’ remarks constitute a prosecutable offense under the Indian penal code…”
Reflecting the mixed opinions on Mr. Modi at the time, the cable said, “A cloud remains over Modi… But Modi’s star continues to rise… for now.”
