|
|
|
General Forum: Current 'Affairs' | | The US has denied VISA to modi?! | |
| Hehehehehehe .. Way to go batasari !!!!!!
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 1, Apr 2005 7:16:24 PM IST
antElEnDi, dRutarAshTralavanTi vALLaku annI ilAnE kanipistAyi. bIjEpI hundU dharmOdhdharaNaku puTTindi ani evarainA annArA? asalu bIjEpI hinduvulaku vIsamettainA, lESAmAtramainA, AvaginjantainA chEsindA? lEdu kadA? EdO kAshAyAmbaram chEtabaTTukuni vachchindi antE. antamAtrAna bIjEpI I pavitra bAraddEsa sArvabhaumatvAnnI manTagalipindanI, tokkalO sekyularijAnnni rEpU ellunDI chEsindanI, parAyi matasthulani sAmUhikangA harinchi khananam chEsindanI endukanDI labalabalabalabanTU nettI nOrU koTTukunTAru? nijAniki pavitra bAraddEsamlO unna tokkalO sekyularijAnni manTagalipindi I kuhanA sekyularishTulE. I nA kAngirEsOLLu vachchI rAgAnE oka matAniki aidu SAtam rijarvEshan anTU modaleTTADu. adE jarigitE itara matasthulu endukUrukunTArU? chivarAkharuki nASanamayyEdevaDu? asalaina hinduvE. hindUtvAnni nammanODu inchekkA molatADU jandhyamU tIsEsi pEru mArchukOkunDA kulam cheDakunDA annI unchukuni suntI chEyinchukODamO pilligaDDam pechukOvaDamO chEsEsukunTADu. mari tappadu kadA? adi bAgunTundE@m mIlAnTOLLaki?
Posted by: Bahud♥♥rapu Baatasaari At: 1, Apr 2005 6:05:26 PM IST
The BJP will definitely push him out of the party soon as the party's leader has already served a charter of discipline to him.
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 1, Apr 2005 5:26:03 PM IST
The Hindu, 31st March 2005.
...
L'AFFAIRE MODI
IT IS NOW becoming clear that the one act of the Bush administration that secular, democratic, and progressive India can agree with, and indeed applaud with some necessary qualifications, is the revocation of Narendra Modi's existing tourist/business visa — in conjunction with finding him ineligible for a diplomatic visa given the nature of his planned visit to the United States. It is important to realise that this determination was the outcome of a spirited and sustained campaign by democrats and human rights activists. It was significant also because it set in motion a chain of unexpected political developments presaging Mr. Modi's downfall.
He had struck a warm, celebratory note over the re-election of George Bush through discovering "a lot of similarity" between his presidential campaign speeches and his own communally virulent gaurav yatra campaign ahead of the 2002 Gujarat Assembly elections. Both triumphs, Mr. Modi had reflected in self-congratulatory vein, could be explained in terms of taking up "the issue of terrorism," Mr. Bush "warn[ing] off America's enemies... [and] I... Gujarat's enemies." He had challenged "political pundits" to analyse the shared experience. But after the visa denial and revocation, Mr. Modi, ever the demagogue, screamed: "an insult to the Constitution of India and its people... a threat to [the] sovereignty and democratic traditions of the country." And, quite out of character, his party leaders found themselves obliged to indulge in some dubious U.S.-bashing. The stage seemed set for yet another essay in Moditva — this time a swabhiman mass campaign.
Meanwhile, the United Kingdom chose a somewhat different but equally impactful course: it would not revoke Mr. Modi's visa but, in keeping with its post-2002 policy of `no [high level] contact' with him, it would deny him official status, including special security. Instant political punditry saw the situation as favourable to the Gujarat Chief Minister but that is not how events have played out. After his decision not to travel to London given the prospect of militant demonstrations by human rights activists and possible arrest, the dissidents in the Gujarat unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party have refused emphatically to withdraw their demand for his removal. The publicity surrounding the controversy is seen by dissident leaders as yet another instance of the Gujarat Chief Minister's penchant for individual glory, a "megalomaniac" attempt to place himself above the party. In fact, dissident leaders view his decision not to travel to London, ostensibly under advice from the Central Government, as a clear case of cold feet. It was perfectly clear that influential groups of Indians opposed to him would be at liberty to protest against his presence in the U.K. What was more, the Indian High Commission in London apparently communicated through New Delhi that, in view of the fact that cases had been filed against Mr. Modi on behalf of the families of two British nationals killed in the Gujarat pogrom of 2002, the arrest of the Gujarat Chief Minister on British soil could not be ruled out; and legal opinion confirmed this assessment. Interestingly, attempts by Mr. Modi to paint the recent developments as a slight to the self-esteem of the people of Gujarat have evoked little response from BJP cadres, not to mention the public.
The Gujarat Chief Minister is a highly polarising figure. There is a large segment of political India, including much of the citizen sector, that believes that Mr. Modi brought indelible shame on State and country by the way his administration presided over the massacre of some 2,000 citizens, most of them Muslim, in the days and weeks following the Godhra tragedy of February 27, 2002. If he has not been arraigned in a court of law for being a party to a conspiracy to `avenge' Godhra or, at the very least, for gross and wilful dereliction of duty, there is a twin explanation. The criminal investigation machinery of the State has been under his control; and the Central Government of the day, in flagrant disregard of its constitutional duty, chose to shield him. Despite these factors, enough actionable evidence has accumulated to indict Mr. Modi morally, politically — and legally. The case against him does not consist of mere "allegations," as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ill-advisedly stated on the floor of the Rajya Sabha. The cumulative findings of the National Human Rights Commission, the Central Bureau of Investigation (in the one case it has been allowed to investigate so far), and the Supreme Court in the Best Bakery case are not "subjective" by any stretch of the imagination. It may be a weakness of the Indian system that an individual of such notoriety can manage to pass off as a "constitutional authority" and enjoy effective immunity from the operation of both the rule of law and effective moral judgment. However, other countries are not obliged to withhold meaningful censure and sanctions of a sort against Mr. Modi's appalling record.
Whether we like it or not, we live in an era of growing international accountability. The people of the world have as much right to be outraged by Gujarat as they are by Abu Ghraib. India may not be a party to the International Criminal Court — which has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide — but this does not mean its citizens cannot be called to account there. Sudan is not a state party to the ICC but France is trying to invoke Article 13b of the ICC Statute (which enables the U.N. Security Council to refer a case to the court under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter) so that individuals accused of crimes against humanity in Darfur can be prosecuted at the Hague. So long as Mr. Modi remains Chief Minister, he will continue to be a profound embarrassment to India's constitutional system. If Indians do not like the prospect of foreign courts getting involved, they must ensure that he is called to account under the rule of law, which is internationally acknowledged to be one of the country's major strengths.
The BJP in Gujarat, of course, has little ideological sympathy with the way the `outside world' and `pseudo-secularists' view the post-Godhra bloodbath. Many local leaders want Mr. Modi replaced because of the way he has squandered the party's political stock; his authoritarian style of functioning; and his neglect of their interests. With elections to local bodies just a few months away, they fear a further erosion of the party's stock, a process that was evident in the mediocre performance of the BJP in the State during the May 2004 general election. Mr. Modi's calculation that the snubs by the U.S. and the U.K. could be turned to his advantage by whipping up pseudo-nationalist hysteria has gone awry. There are enough indications that the countdown to his exit has begun.
If the dissidents succeed, Mr. Modi's ouster should not be interpreted, simplistically, as political and moral accounting for his role in the Gujarat pogrom. The BJP as a party and other constituents of the sangh parivar have persistently refused to show any contrition for the events of 2002. Mr. Modi's downfall, if it happens, will reflect the play of mixed factors — the values of constitutionalism, secularism, democracy, human rights, and common decency working in tandem with realpolitik. For a restive flock of BJP MLAs and MPs from Gujarat, Mr. Modi has become a political and electoral liability, leading them on a road to nowhere. For those committed to democratic values, Mr. Modi is persona non grata, and Moditva a blot on India's civilisational heritage.
...
Hence, it is sure, he is going to be a liability to the BJP instead of asset. It appears that we all going to notice his downfall as dissidency at Gujarat is on it's zenith. His impotency as a Chief Minister of that State (as a constitutional dignatory), made Supreme Court, Law Enforcing agencies, India's image both at India and outside almost shattered. He is in crisis.
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 1, Apr 2005 5:24:35 PM IST
BJP campaigned agaisnt PV with swadESI. In fact it was in forefront to disinvest even profit making PSUs. Opportunitism every prevails with BJP regarding power grabbing.
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 1, Apr 2005 5:15:06 PM IST
If the US has committed mistakes, it already facing allegations at various internaitonal fora. If it took decision against Modi, we convey token protest.If Modi feels he alone Indian democracy, a foolish though indeed. BJP has already made it a national issue. BJP has once made 'India is Shinning', that is rejected by the people. This episode too will be faded away. The BJP will wait for another opportunity to dance half naked with another irrelevent issue.
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 1, Apr 2005 5:12:14 PM IST
An elected representative of a sovereign state was denied Visa.
..
But by a Sovereign Country!
India too has that right.
//Vachaspati gaaru - Are you supporting the Swadeshi Agenda of BJP :))
...In fact, their Swadeshi is Videshi. I reject.They feel they are guardians of Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism can protect itself.
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 1, Apr 2005 5:08:49 PM IST
If Modi gets VISA US will be certified for achievement.
Who is stopping the counter action for Modi VISA refusal?
Posted by: Mr. M Kumar N At: 29, Mar 2005 11:13:43 PM IST
avunu kiraN gaaru
Posted by: Mr. HAYAGREEVA MURTY Rachuri At: 29, Mar 2005 3:58:52 PM IST
Trash!
1. Modi knows what he is upto.
2. US has refused VISA for many in the past throughout the world.
Why on earth Modi wants US VISA, can't they hate westernization ???
Posted by: Mr. Madhu kumar Nemalikanti At: 19, Mar 2005 2:27:53 PM IST
...
But Yes. Modi belongs to that party that won the elections in past with a slogan " swadESI" against Congress(I) that globalized economy under Mr.Manmohan Singh. He must hate the US and stop begging for VISA. Instead of it, he must invite all the Gujaratis to be back to Gujarat from the US. Then he will know how popular he is!
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 28, Mar 2005 10:42:30 AM IST
| |
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
