Skip to main content

Narendra Modi must be Prime Minister to be automatically eligible for US diplomatic visa: Congressional report

By Our Representative
Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi must become Prime Minister of India in order to get a diplomatic visa for the US. This is the crux of the new Congressional Research Service memorandum “Visa Policy: the case of Narendra Modi”, written by Ruth Ellen Wasem, specialist in immigration policy, made public on March 18. In her categorical statement, Wasem says, “If Narendra Modi were to become Prime Minister of India, he would automatically be eligible for A-1 (diplomatic) visa as head of state, regardless of the purpose of his visit.”
The rider of “if Narendra Modi were to become Prime Minister” should appear as a clear disapproval of Modi’s policies in Gujarat, say observers. While the Congressional report is being widely interpreted, including by the New York Times, as “the prospect of keeping Modi out of the US is looking dimmer and dimmer”, Wasem’s analysis provides two different scenarios under which Modi can get visa. The first is “if” he becomes Prime Minister, and the other is, in case he remains Gujarat chief minister.
In the latter case, according to Wasem, “If chief minister Narendra Modi sought visa to come to the US today, he would likely to be applying for a B visitor visa. The B-1 visas are visitors for business and other purely local employment or hire. The B-2 visas are granted to temporary visitors for ‘pleasure’ otherwise known as tourists. His role as the chief minister of Gujarat does not provide eligibility to enter as a diplomat on A visa. Ambassadors, consuls, and official representatives of foreign governments enter the US on A visas.”
Pointing out that only in case the Government of India certifies him as “part of a special diplomatic mission or delegation could he apply for A visa”, Wasem suggests, even then, getting the A category would not be so easy, as it would require a lengthy procedure. This procedure would require the US diplomats to get themselves satisfied that Modi is a “key contact, who promotes US national interests, mission goals, or public diplomacy efforts”, and is a “prominent individual who is not a contact, but is well known, such as a nationally-known figure.”
In fact, the researcher says, Modi’s visa application would have to be examined under the US law International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which states that “any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom… is inadmissible.” As it was on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom’s (USCIRF’s) advise Modi was denied visa in 2005 for 10 years, the option of looking into his role in the 2002 riots would still be open.
While considering his visa application, the US government would look into India's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) report which said Modi “was widely accused of being reluctant to bring the perpetrators of the killings of the Muslims to justice”. It would also see other reports, including the one prepared by the special investigation (SIT), appointed by the Supreme Court, which found “no substantial incriminating evidence” against Modi. At the same time, it would consider the Gujarat High Court criticism of Modi for “inaction and negligence” during the violence.
The US Congressional report, interesting, does not stop here. At the very fag end, it quotes President Barrack Obama’s August 2011 order, which says the President, if he so wishes, can prohibit “the entry of any foreign national” who is “detrimental to the interests of the US.” The order specifically says the US president can cancel order of a foreign national in case he has “planned, ordered, aided, abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population … on race, colour, descent, …indigenous group, language, religion…”
The research paper was prepared on the basis of a query by Representative Joe Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, who have “a track record of criticizing Modi”, says the New York Times, adding, On November 18, 2013, Pitts introduced House Resolution 417, which called for the US to continue to deny Modi a visa and argued that ‘the Gujarat government has not adequately pursued justice for the victims of the 2002 violence.’ Today, the resolution has 44 co-sponsors, including Ellison.”
Quoting sources in the US Congress, the New York Times believes, this was the “last ditch attempt” by Pitts and Ellison “to see what can be done to block Modi’s visa.” It adds, “This perhaps explains why the congressmen asked the Congressional Research Service about existing legal options to challenge a decision to grant a United States visa to a foreign national, but Wasem, an immigration specialist, said she was unable to answer the question” and the issue would be addressed separately by “Margaret Mikyung Lee”, a legal expert.

Comments

TRENDING

Vaccine nationalism? Covaxin isn't safe either, perhaps it's worse: Experts

By Rajiv Shah  I was a little awestruck: The news had already spread that Astrazeneca – whose Indian variant Covishield was delivered to nearly 80% of Indian vaccine recipients during the Covid-19 era – has been withdrawn by the manufacturers following the admission by its UK pharma giant that its Covid-19 vector-based vaccine in “rare” instances cause TTS, or “thrombocytopenia thrombosis syndrome”, which lead to the blood to clump and form clots. The vaccine reportedly led to at least 81 deaths in the UK.

'Scientifically flawed': 22 examples of the failure of vaccine passports

By Vratesh Srivastava*   Vaccine passports were introduced in late 2021 in a number of places across the world, with the primary objective of curtailing community spread and inducing "vaccine hesitant" people to get vaccinated, ostensibly to ensure herd immunity. The case for vaccine passports was scientifically flawed and ethically questionable.

'Misleading' ads: Are our celebrities and public figures acting responsibly?

By Deepika* It is imperative for celebrities and public figures to act responsibly while endorsing a consumer product, the Supreme Court said as it recently clamped down on misleading advertisements.

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah*   The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

US 'frustrated' with India’s discomfort: Maritime exercise in South China Sea

By Vijay Prashad*  In early April 2024, the navies of four countries -- Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and the United States -- held a maritime exercise in the South China Sea. Australia’s Warramunga, Japan’s Akebono, the Philippines’ Antonio Luna, and the United States’ Mobile worked together in these waters to strengthen their joint abilities and -- as they said in a joint statement  -- to “uphold the right to freedom of navigation and overflight and respect for maritime rights under international law.” 

Magnetic, stunning, Protima Bedi 'exposed' malice of sexual repression in society

By Harsh Thakor*  Protima Bedi was born to a baniya businessman and a Bengali mother as Protima Gupta in Delhi in 1949. Her father was a small-time trader, who was thrown out of his family for marrying a dark Bengali women. The theme of her early life was to rebel against traditional bondage. It was extraordinary how Protima underwent a metamorphosis from a conventional convent-educated girl into a freak. On October 12th was her 75th birthday; earlier this year, on August 18th it was her 25th death anniversary.

Palm oil industry 'deceptively using' geenwashing to market products

By Athena*  Corporate hypocrisy is a masterclass in manipulation that mostly remains undetected by consumers and citizens. Companies often boast about their environmental and social responsibilities. Yet their actions betray these promises, creating a chasm between their public image and the grim on-the-ground reality. This duplicity and severely erodes public trust and undermines the strong foundations of our society.

India 'not keen' on legally binding global treaty to reduce plastic production

By Rajiv Shah  Even as offering lip-service to the United Nations Environment Agency (UNEA) for the need to curb plastic production, the Government of India appears reluctant in reducing the production of plastic. A senior participant at the UNEP’s fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4), which took place in Ottawa in April last week, told a plastics pollution seminar that India, along with China and Russia, did not want any legally binding agreement for curbing plastic pollution.

No compensation to family, reluctance to file FIR: Manual scavengers' death

By Arun Khote, Sanjeev Kumar*  Recently, there have been four instances of horrifying deaths of sewer/septic tank workers in Uttar Pradesh. On 2 May, 2024, Shobran Yadav, 56, and his son Sushil Yadav, 28, died from suffocation while cleaning a sewer line in Lucknow’s Wazirganj area. In another incident on 3 May 2024, two workers Nooni Mandal, 36 and Kokan Mandal aka Tapan Mandal, 40 were killed while cleaning the septic tank in a house in Noida, Sector 26. The two workers were residents of Malda district of West Bengal and lived in the slum area of Noida Sector 9. 

Dadi, poti discuss 'injustice' under 10 yr Modi rule: Video campaign goes viral

By Our Representative  Watan Ki Raah Mein, a civil society campaign of the Samvidhan Bachao Nagrik Abhiyan, has released a short video conversation on social media of an exchange of letters between a dadi and her poti discussing poverty, unemployment, corruption and women’s safety. The letters also raise the question of  suppression of our fundamental rights of speech, expression and justice.