USCIRF till 2013 held 'considerable cloud on Modi' of Gujarat riots

JALANDHAR: Midway through 2013, Narendra Modi was still the Gujarat chief minister, preparing for a final assault in his campaign to become prime minister. Just then, the House National Security Subcommittee on International religious Freedom Act of the US Congress held a hearing on June 13, 2013, where it was informed that a considerable cloud hanged over Modi’s conduct during 2002 Gujarat riots.
This was stated by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) commissioner Katrina Lantos Swett.Effectively, the commission that was responsible for denying Modi a US visa for nearly 10 years was refusing to let Modi off the hook despite his growing popularity both in India and among NRIs in the US. This could well be one of the reasons why the NDA government refused visa to the Commission panel in 2016. However the annual report 2016 on religious freedom by the Commission giving some strong observations on India has held that India is on a negative trajectory in terms of religious freedom.
Documents released two months back by US Department of State have revealed that during the hearing on June 13, 2013, USCFIR Commissioner Katrina Lantos Swett told the House National Security Subcommittee that a considerable cloud hanged over his conduct during 2002 Gujarat riots.
She also told the Acting Chair Cynthia Lummis during the hearing that USCIRF did send a letter to then Secretary (Hillary) Clinton in 2012 in which they urged the State Department to stand firm in a principal position. Incidentally the Commission was headed by Robert P George at that time now also he is at the helm and Swett continues to be one of its Commissioners.
The documents were released during a hearing before US Federal Judge on February 29 pursuant to the lawsuit filed by Sikhs For Justice (SFJ) asking DOS to produce all documents related to lifting of ban on Indian Prime Minister Modi's entry to the United States. USDOS released hundreds of documents.
While several of these documents released are emails, parts of which have been excised or some have been completely denied by the authorities, an email of June 14 2013 by Sharyn Magarian, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, USDOS, titled ‘Lummis mention of Modi at HOGR hearing’ says that Lummis asked the panel about the Modi and then gives a gist of what she asked.
Then another email of June 17, 2013 by an official Nadel, Daniel L to other officials gives transcript of exchange between Rep. Lummis and the HOGR hearing participants regarding Modi case.
The transcript then mentions Lummis saying that she wanted to talk specifically about Chief Minister Modi of Gujarat who was denied visa under this (International Religious Freedom Act) law and continues to be denied a visa “when he is now the leader of his political party in India and is likely to become a candidate for Prime Minister.” “There I have some concerns about the application of a continuing denial to him of visa to the US. Here is someone whose province is growing dramatically in its hiring of people”, she said that while mentioning that numerous companies were moving in because of business atmosphere there. “Now in the light of that decade of history are we correct to continue to deny a specific individual in the largest democracy in the world of visa to the US,” she asked.
Responding to this questions Lantos Swett, before giving a response, remarked “I think you will probably won’t like my answer”. While mentioning about the Gujarat riots she said “There is, we feel at the USCIRF considerable, a considerable cloud that still hangs over his conduct during these riots. And some of the evidence is more recent”. She also mentioned the “quite critical report” of the “India’s own commission of human rights” and “a sworn affidavit from a senior police officer who was part of the police forces in Gujarat at the time who is quoted in that affidavit as having minister Modi say very specifically that police should not intervene to stop the rioting”, adding “gist of what he said was that the Hindu community had the right to sort of let off steam”, and “that the police should not intervene to stop rioting”.
Indian Courts also find a reference for slow pace
While discussing the Indian courts also came under discussion and their “slow” pace was also pointed out in negative remarks. Lummis asked comments of Dr. Farr (Dr Thomas F Farr, Director of Religious Freedom project, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, Georgetown University). As Farr, who had given a testimony in the Sub Committee hearing, pointed out the tension between religious freedom and American interest he also mentioned inaction by the police and pointed out that Modi was incharge of the Police to drive home the point “pulling this visa prohibition … the symbolism of that I think would be very, very bad”.
However when Lummis quipped “even though their own courts have not found”, Farr remarked “their courts are notorious for not”. On this Lantos Swett support Farrr’s contention saying “And they have, in many ways, of course very legitimate court system but they themselves will say that they are slow and have had challenges in trying to address these issues. So I don’t think it would be fair to say that there have even been a determination that there was no moral culpability on the past of Modi in this matter. And it was, as Dr Farr has so powerfully said, a very terrible, terrible circumstance”.
Dr Farr had also served as first Director of the State Department’s office of International Religious Freedom from 1999 to 2003.